UAH Global Temperature Update for July 2020: +0.44 deg. C

August 3rd, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2020 was +0.44 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the June, 2020 value of +0.43 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 months are:

 YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


4,760 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for July 2020: +0.44 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Svante says:

    Evidence that models exaggerate CO2 forcing:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?

    • Midas says:

      So you disagree with others here that the greenhouse effect is non-existent, and is in fact 70% of the predicted effect. I call that progress. Please inform Gordon.

      • Svante says:

        Yes, radiative forcing change from +37 ppm CO2, 2002-2019 (table 1, page 5):
        AIRS 10◦N-40◦S 0.434±0.047 Wm−2
        IPCC AR5 ERF 0.508±0.102 Wm−2

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        midas…”Please inform Gordon”.

        What you call the greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass roof and walls. Since there are no roofs or walls in the atmosphere it is obvious that kind of GHE cannot work.

        The real effect that has warmed the atmosphere was explained by R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2. Nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, absorbs heat directly at the surface by conduction, and that heated air rises by convection. Since N2/O2 are poor emitters of IR, they cannot get rid of the heat till the air rises high enough and the gas expands. Then it cools naturally due to expansion.

        Since the Sun only shines a certain number of hours per day the atmosphere on the side away from the Sun can cool and the 33C offered as evidence of the GHE is the resultant of the heating/cooling. There’s no need to radiatively balance energy in versus energy out, it is already balanced through solar energy raising the Earth’s temp by 33C. Solar input serves to maintain the temperature, no need to balance it radiatively.

        If you had a planet with no atmosphere and oceans, like the Moon, then you could talk about a radiative balance. With an atmosphere and oceans, things get much more complex, especially when the rotational speed of the planet is just right. Kiehle and Trenberth should have known that but they were far too hung up on the notion of a trace gas causing the warming, hence a radiative balance.

        If they’d understood the Ideal Gas Law better they might have arrived at a better explanation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…I have not claimed at any time that the ‘average’ temperature referenced by Roy is solely due to pressure. I have offered the disclaimer that I am talking about a static, ideal atmosphere and excluding convective air flows that obviously affect temperatures within the static, ideal state.

            One would not expect the temperature profile in the Tropics to be the same as the temperature profile at the poles. However, the adiabatic lapse rate cannot explain why the pressure at the peak of Everest, at nearly 30,000 feet, is 1/3 the pressure at the surface. A negative pressure gradient due to diminishing gravitational force can explain it.

            And the adiabatic lapse rate cannot contradict the Ideal Gas Law in a static atmosphere which claims that at a constant volume, temperature varies directly with pressure. Based on the IGL, temperature should decrease with pressure.

            This is not rocket science. As pressure decreases at higher altitudes, there are less molecules of air per unit volume. A lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature. How does the ALR explain that? If there was no gravity, there would be no particular reason for it, in fact, we’d have no atmosphere without gravity.

            Furthermore, I don’t think there is any such thing as an adiabatic lapse rate in general. There is no way to contain a column of air without molecules mixing with adjacent molecules so in the boundary regions it is not possible.

            That means, the ALR applies to limited spaces within the atmosphere and I have acknowledged that such convective flows can affect the average temperature in a region.

          • Nate says:


            A lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature. ”

            Huh???

            You think its cold in a vacuum chamber?

          • ClintR says:

            I don’t have to point out that troll Nate has no understanding of physics.

            I just let him to that for me.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR and Gordon, perhaps you can redraw this thermosphere temperature diagram, you did such a great job on the green plate effect:
            https://stratusdeck.co.uk/vertical-temperature-structure

          • Nate says:

            “I dont have to point out that troll Nate has no understanding of physics.”

            Well once in a great while you do need to back that up with specifics, otherwise its just bluster.

            What law of physics states that ” a lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature.”?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The Green Plate Effect was theoretically debunked some time ago, and experimentally debunked here:

            https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/

            https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/

          • Svante says:

            Yeah, principia is due for the Nobel prize for their groundbreaking new interpretation of radiative heat transfer.

          • Nate says:

            Like ‘troll’, apparently ‘debunk’ has lost all meaning.

            They seem to think it means: pick a topic and speak gibberish about it, and repeat a dozen times.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No new interpretation, Svante, just experiments.

          • bobdroege says:

            Svante,

            You left the ig off of the nobel.

            But then principia couldn’t win one of those either.

            You have to at least be able to properly perform an experiment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Empty, substance-free denigration from blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            Sorry you don’t understand the issues with your experimental non-debunking of the green plate effect.

            You know I and others have performed the experiment and confirmed that the effect does indeed exist.

            Just because the clowns at principia can’t find the green plate effect, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

            You want to show us your theoretical debunking again, oh you won’t because we have already torn it to shreds.

            That cute little diagram that violates a number of laws of physics that you can’t understand.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Again, nothing of any substance, from blob.

          • Nate says:

            “nothing of any substance”

            The master-baiter is at it again.

            You have seen physics-based criticisms literally dozens of times.

            The flaws in the experiment have been pointed out and dismissed dozens of times.

            You had no sensible answers to these criticisms dozens of times.

            You made up your own fake physics and twisted yourself into a logical pretzel, literally dozens of times.

            To pretend that ‘nothing of substance’ has been presented to you literally dozens of times is a breathtaking lie.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Again, nothing of any substance, from blob.

          • bdgwx says:

            Svante said: Yeah, principia is due for the Nobel prize for their groundbreaking new interpretation of radiative heat transfer.

            PSI is certainly among the lowest of the low in terms of scientific integrity. The site’s owner John O’Sullivan’s personal integrity is even lower. For the details refer to the affidavits file in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under case VLC-S-S-111913. Most people will find the materials highly offensive. It is not work appropriate. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s just the blog the experimental results were published on, bdgwx. Does not change the results, nor does it invalidate the process.

            Swanson’s experimental results for the GPE were “published” in the comments at Dr Spencer’s. Same thing. Completely irrelevant to the validity of the experiment.

            You will all have to try a lot harder than you are currently. Poisoning the well isn’t going to work.

          • Nate says:

            “Swanson’s experimental results for the GPE were ‘published'” on a blog.

            Yes with all the details and obvious quality controls, such as actual pressures stated.

            But, no matter. Your assumption that our only source of empirical tests are these TWO experiments is ridiculous.

            To pretend that we dont have textbooks galore with the correct radiative heat transfer laws which are empirically tested, and similar homework problems to the GPE, is part of your never ending denial of reality.

            We have applications galore of these laws, such as multi layer insulation MLI, and even the ubiquitous IR temperature sensors.

            We have the empirically-tested theory behind MLI, that none of you can dispute, but definitively falsifies the PSI GPE models.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Readers might already be aware that I no longer bother responding to Nate. Commenters like Chic and Kristian will know why.

          • Nate says:

            Well when u get called out on your BS theres really not much to say about it.

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Commenters like Chic and Kristian will know why.

            Kristian is not that stupid, he calculates the same GPE temperatures as Eli and the rest of us:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344392

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Not what I meant, Svante.

          • Nate says:

            DT demonstrated this method yesterday…when called out on his BS, he just walked away.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I meant, Chic and Kristian have had enough long discussions with Nate to understand why I no longer bother responding to him.

          • Nate says:

            Good. So long as you understand that not responding doesnt invalidate the criticisms. Your lies dont become truths simply because you dont respond..

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            I meant, Chic and Kristian have had enough long discussions with Nate to understand why I no longer bother responding to him.

        • Robert Ingersol says:

          Greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass dome. Funny, flat earthers say you can’t have air pressure without a glass dome. Maybe you should join up with them. Or have you already done that?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            robert ingersoll…”Greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass dome. Funny, flat earthers say you can’t have air pressure without a glass dome”.

            Duh!!! It’s called the greenhouse effect because it’s supposed to replicate greenhouse warming. When was the last time you saw a greenhouse without a glass roof and walls?

            The problem with the atmosphere modeled as a real greenhouse is the error made in presuming that IR, converted from SW solar EM by soil, etc., is trapped by glass and somehow warms the air in the greenhouse. How? How does a trace gas making up 0.04% of that air raise the temperature of the air so much.

            R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2 claimed it could not warm the air like that. He thought the warming came from all air molecules being heated and trapped by the glass and being unable to release the heat due to a lack of convection. He designed an experiment to prove his point.

            Wood was not a lightweight scientist, he was revered in his field and Neils Bohr consulted with him on sodium vapour gas.

            The GHE theory named after the effect in a real greenhouse got the theory wrong. Trapped IR cannot raise the temperature of the atmosphere and heat dissipated through radiation from CO2 cannot cool it much. It’s obvious the cooling must happen in another manner and I offered an explanation.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo is confused as usual, writing:

            R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2 claimed it could not warm the air like that.

            Trapped IR cannot raise the temperature of the atmosphere and heat dissipated through radiation from CO2 cannot cool it much. Its obvious the cooling must happen in another manner and I offered an explanation.

            Wrong. Gordo’s convection cooling model does not explain what happens to the thermal energy “dissipated” to deep space above his convection loops.

          • Svante says:

            Hi Gordon, you must have missed my first post on this page.

            Adding 35 ppm CO2 2002-2019 cut 0.4 W/m^2 from the spectrum.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, Svante, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            Yeah people, stop doing that ‘trolling’ thing that has no meaning according to DREMT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Swanson, Svante, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            DREMT can contradict himself and post admittedly meaningless things without a care in the world….OK good to know.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Swanson, Svante, please stop trolling.

        • DMacKenzie says:

          Gordon, your rants on the GHE are incorrect. The definition of GHE in the atmosphere is the result of the H2O and CO2 being radiative gases plus them being at the same temperature as the N2 and O2 surrounding them.
          It might help you understand the atmospheric science GHE if you consider the ‘sky’ to be an intermediate surface between the ground and outer space.
          The amount of heat being radiated from one surface to another, using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is
          q/a= [k/(1/ehot+1/ecold-1] x (Thot^4-Tcold^4).
          The ground is at Thot due to being warmed by sunshine,
          If the atmosphere was only N2 and O2, it would be completelely transparent to Infrared. The “surface” the ground would radiate to is outer space at -270 C and would be much colder than it is now. We partially see this effect when starry, cloudless nights are distinctly colder.
          But CO2 and H2O readily absorb and reradiate IR. Because the H2O and CO2 are the same temperature in the atmosphere as the N2 and O2, the “surface” the ground radiates to is “the sky”, and the “sky” is much warmer than outer space. You can take an IR thermometer and typically read the temperature of clouds at about freezing and blue sky down to -80 (but $40 IR guns do not have proper emissivity settings to do this job very accurately).
          Anyway my point is that the ground temp will get warmer, due to it’s daily sunlight heat source, if you do the calculation, in order for the planet to radiate the same amount of heat it receives from the sun, when there are radiating gases between the ground and outer space. It will take you a few minutes to make your own spreadsheet to confirm…

          • ClintR says:

            DMacKenzie, you made numerous mistakes there. I’ll just mention the first three:

            1) That is NOT the definition of the GHE. The definition involves CO2 warming the surface, which is not possible.

            2) That equation is terribly messed up. Where did you get such a kluge?

            3) You stated: “We partially see this effect when starry, cloudless nights are distinctly colder.” The effect you see is due to “cloudless”, not CO2.

          • DMacKenzie says:

            No Clint, I made no mistakes here. On Point 1, you don’t seem to understand radiative GHE at all….Point 2, any heat transfer text will give that equation for the heat transfer between parallel surfaces….Point 3, of course cloudless nights sre cloudless, I was referring to radiation to cold outer space being more apparent to your skin on starry cloudless nights..

          • ClintR says:

            DMacKenzie,

            1) If you believe the GHE means nothing more than gases in the same atmospheric layers are at the same temperature, then I’m content.

            2) If you now admit that your equation is for imaginary infinite parallel surfaces, and not applicable to the atmosphere, then I’m content.

            3) If you now agree that a cloudless night sky makes the surface cooler, then I’m content.

            I guess I’m content now that you’ve fixed your mistakes.

          • Nate says:

            “3) If you now agree that a cloudless night sky makes the surface cooler, then I’m content.”

            Well thats a new position for you. I wonder how you explain that? Radiative cooling perhaps? And how does a cloudy night prevent that radiative cooling?

          • Swenson says:

            Clueless Nate,

            As you seem to be baffled by basic physics, a little book written by John Tyndall over 100 years ago might help. It is called Heat. A mode of motion.

            It even has pretty pictures and diagrams to help those like yourself.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dmackenzie…fine Scottish name but you’re no Maxwell.

            The greenhouse effect presumes several things. One is that a trace gas can absorb enough surface radiation to raise its temperature and by that action spread the heat to the 2500 molecules surrounding it. Nonsense!!

            Another is that the heated trace gas can back-radiate IR to the surface, raising the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by SW solar. More nonsense!!

            Before considering quantities of back-radiated IR, one should be aware of a fundamental law in thermodynamics. As stated by its creator, Rudolf Clausius, heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cold object to a warmer object. The GHGs back-radiating the IR are at a colder temperature than the surface therefore no heat can be transferred from them to the warmer surface that warmed them in the first place. Such a recycling of heat not only contradicts the 2nd law it is perpetual motion.

            Please note, both GHE and AGW confuse IR with heat. Heat is not IR and there is a rule governing its transfer between bodies of different temperature…the 2nd law.

            Yet another explanation of the GHG. Trace gases in the atmosphere slow down the dissipation of heat from the surface. You quoted S-B, incorrectly by the way, but their equation for two bodies of different temperatures make it clear that the temperature of the entire atmosphere is the factor affecting the dissipation of surface heat AT THE SURFACE, not a trace, constituent part.

            The temperature of the atmosphere is determined by nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere. That temperature is the governing factor for surface heat dissipation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dmckenzie…”Point 2, any heat transfer text will give that equation for the heat transfer between parallel surfaces”

            I have yet to see such a text offer a practical example to go along with their misguided theories. I would like to see just one of them show a REAL calculation wherein heat is transferred both ways between parallel plates. Then I’d like to see it proved by experimentation. It cannot be done.

            There is a lot of rot in engineering texts that needs to be remedied. Electrical engineering textbooks have tied themselves in knots by insisting that current flows from positive to negative. They call it conventional current flow and make it clear that electron flow is in the opposite direction. That convention dates back to 1925.

            I daresay that engineering texts teaching the bs that heat can be transferred both ways between parallel plates by radiation are confused about the basics of blackbody radiation. I seldom see it mentioned when referring to Kitcheoff’s theories on blackbodies that the theory pertained ONLY to states of thermal equilibrium. What they are doing in the texts is applying BB theory incorrectly by exceeding the BB theory and using S-B incorrectly.

            I was just re-reading one of my old electrical engineering texts in which they showed a basic N-type Field Effect Transistor. The majority carriers in an N-type are electrons therefore they must indicate that electron flow from the source (cathode) of the FET to the Drain (anode). At the same time they are trapped into showing the circuit current flowing from the drain toward the source.
            So now you have a real current of electrons flowing as they should, from source to drain in an N-type but due to their assinine paradigm insisting that electrical current flows positive to negative they must also show ‘a current’ flowing from the drain to the source. What constitutes the reverse current? Nothing…there are no positive particles in the semiconductor that can move, they are bound to the nucleus in a lattice.

            The point is they cannot tell you what flows from positive to negative. There are no atomic particles that can explain it, only electrons can explain the current flow and in the field of electrons that is the established convention. So electrical engineering students are brain-washed with bs and upon graduation have to interface with an electronic/electrical industry in which current flows negative to positive.

            It gets even more stupid with semiconductors where there are N-type silicon types and P-type. The silicon is doped with donor or acceptor atoms that create a surplus or dearth of electrons. A P-type has ‘holes’ as majority carriers and this is where the theory becomes absolutely stupid.

            The creator of the theory, Schockley, admits that holes are abstractions to help visualize a lack of electrons then he contradicts himself by claiming holes can create a current flow. Pardon???

            A hole is created when an electron departs a valence band in a silicon atom. The same can be claimed in a copper wire. If a valence electron in a cooper atom is energized it can escape the atom and become a free electron. No one explains how the free electron maneuvres between silicon or copper nucleii with their bands of electron with negative charges which should repel a free electron.

            The position it vacated leaves a hole in the valence band and it can be filled with another free electron. As electrons move negative to positive, the holes they leave behind move positive to negative. However, one has to be a complete idiot to think such a hole represents a flow of current. I have always considered the current carriers to be electrons and I have encountered no problems with the practical aspects.

            Although this absurd theory is still taught in electrical engineering it breaks down dramatically with certain electronic devices. The basic vacuum tube diode has a tungsten filament from which electrons are boiled off the surface by running an electric current through the filament till it glows red. Surrounding the filament is a cylindrical element called a plate and if a positive charge of several hundred volts is applied to the anode, with the whole unit in an evacuated glass tube, the electrons are attracted to the plate. If the tube is in a proper circuit, a current will flow in the circuit.

            According to conventional current flow theory. there is a current flowing from the positive plate to the negative cathode/filament. What constitutes this current flow? No one ever explains that just as no one ever explains how heat can flow both ways between parallel plates.

            Same thing with cathode ray tube, like the older TV and computer displays, as well as electron microscopes that rely in bombarding a target with electrons. In an electrical engineering textbook, the electrons will be ignored and some mysterious positive charge will be shown flowing from the target to the electron microscope electron source.

            Moral…never trust a text book explicitly. Always ask questions and never be satisfied with no answer forthcoming that makes sense.

          • Nate says:

            “Clueless Nate,

            As you seem to be baffled by basic physics”

            No, dimwit-troll Swenson/Flynn, point is that Clint has never acknowledged before that the temperature of the sky makes any difference to the rate of radiative cooling of the surface.

            That would be new for him.

          • ClintR says:

            Once again, Nate misrepresents others because he can’t face reality.

          • DMacKenzie says:

            Gordon,
            Having used Hottel charts years ago to design fired process furnaces with the intention of preventing metal failures and fluid coking, along with sufficient thermocouples to monitor the process, I can tell you that textbook heat transfer WORKS, radiant heat calcs based on SB are more accurate than forced convective calcs based on Buckingham Pi theorem similarity experiments, and your statement that you don’t believe experimental evidence corroborating the formulae exists, is simply a testament to your lack of knowledge on the matter.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR/JDHuffman/Geran busted by Nate again …

          • Svante says:

            So how can clouds raise surface temperature ClintR?

          • ClintR says:

            Svante trolls just like Nate–nothing to offer except misrepresentations.

            Two peas in a pod.

          • Nate says:

            Clint/JD is the evasion king.

            Never has answers, just tosses ad-hom grenades.

            Straight from the troll handbook.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dmckenzie…”Having used Hottel charts years ago to design fired process furnaces with the intention of preventing metal failures and fluid coking, along with sufficient thermocouples to monitor the process, I can tell you that textbook heat transfer WORKS”

            I am not arguing that heat transfer does not work. I would like to know how a two way heat transfer works in a blast furnace. Where does the heat transfer take place within the furnace? If it does not take place between the hotter flames and the cooler target, where else does it take place? Maybe between the furnace boundary and the cooler air in the room?

            I am claiming, based on the work of Clausius that no heat transfer takes place between the cooler room air and the several thousand degrees of the furnace interior. I can see no possible use for equations that imply a two way transfer in such a context.

            I know nothing about Hottel charts but from what I was able to learn they are nothing more than charts showing the standard emissivity of gases at different temperatures and pressure. What does that have to do with CO2 at a cooler temperature being able to transfer heat to a hotter surface that warmed it?

            Radiative emissivity is not heat. During the process of emission, heat is lost as it is converted to IR. The Hottel charts are showing radiation, not heat.

          • ClintR says:

            You’re correct, Gordon. Hottel’s work is based on actual measurements, not related to any perversions of the S/B Law.

            In addition, Hottel’s charts are for boiler firebox temperatures, which do not occur in the troposphere. Mackenzie has made another mistake by trying to use Hottel incorrectly. Hopefully he will learn.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Test

        • bdgwx says:

          GR said: What you call the greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass roof and walls. Since there are no roofs or walls in the atmosphere it is obvious that kind of GHE cannot work.

          The effect works just fine and is exploited by NDIR sensors to save countless lives everyday. There certainly isn’t a glass roof or physical barrier of any kind between the heat lamp and sensor. Maybe there is confusion regarding how the GHE works?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bdg…”The effect works just fine and is exploited by NDIR sensors…”

            Your logic is lost on me. I am not claiming CO2 does not absorb infrared energy I am claiming there simply is not enough CO2 to affect the temperature of the atmosphere. This is backed by R.W. Wood who was an expert on CO2 and other gases.

            I don’t think a real greenhouse warms due to its CO2 or WV content. You could remove all CO2 and WV from a greenhouse and it would still warm the same as before. It warms because 99% of the air accounted for between nitrogen and oxygen get warmed directly by the soil and infrastructure warmed SW solar.

            Same with the atmosphere. Remove all CO2 and not much would change, except to the plants. We need the WV for rain but its contribution to atmospheric temperature is insignificant.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Maybe there is confusion regarding how the GHE works?”

            Yes. Much.

            Gordon writes “(bdgwx) logic is lost on me” because Gordon also writes 12:18am “I have yet to see such a (heat transfer) text” whereas R.W. Wood and bdgwx have “seen” and understood such texts.

            If Gordon really wanted to know how Earth’s atm. greenhouse increased opacity warms the surface air and what would happen to surface air temperatures in the absence of CO2 grey absorber IR opacity at 1bar of pressure, then there are plenty of texts, over a century of basic experimentally driven papers on the subject, and Dr. Spencer’s atm. experiments for Gordon to discover, “see”, & learn basic physics of planetary atmospheres from 1st principles.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, as is his habit, has again flooded the blog with his usual denialist crap, claiming that R. W. Wood completely disproved the CO2/Greehouse Effect with his simple demonstration in 1909.

            Wood concluded:

            …It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.

            I do not pretent(sic) to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.

            In short, Dr. Wood did not claim that there’s no Greenhouse Effect due to the radiactively active gases. Of course, Gordo continues to ignore my experimental efforts, the results of which demonstrate that “back radiation” from a cooler body can cause the temperature of a warmer body to increase.

          • ClintR says:

            Swanson, I actually went to your link. (Boy, was that a mistake.) I only made it to the second paragraph. You idiots are always confusing “heat” with “energy”.

            “They [sic] claim is that ‘back radiation’ is not possible because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can not be transmitted from a body of lower temperature to another body of higher temperature in thermodynamic situations.”

            A cold object can emit energy toward a hot object. That is not a violation of 2nd Law. But the cold object cannot warm the hot object.

            A simple analogy is if you found a $100 bill on the ground. You went to the bank to deposit it, but you got robbed first. Your bank account will not increase by $100 just because you were headed to the bank.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR wrote:

            A cold object can emit energy toward a hot object. That is not a violation of 2nd Law. But the cold object cannot warm the hot object.

            As usual, you (and Gordo) refuse to tell us what happens to the photons emitted by the cooler body which might be intercepted by the warmer one. The energy of those photons does not vanish, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, (aka, the Law of Conservation of Energy).

            Of course, you didn’t even bother to read my post describing the Ice Plate Demo, having obviously chosen to ignore any evidence which refutes your bogus physics.

          • ClintR says:

            Swanson, before I even started to read your nonsense I already knew you were an idiot, from the Moon discussion months ago. You deny reality.

            Then, I started to read your nonsense and saw that you were only interesting in attacking those that support reality. You tried to pervert the 2nd Law, now you’re trying to pervert the 1st Law because you don’t understand what happens to reflected photons.

            Here’s an experiment for you: Turn off the light in a closed room after dark. Where do the photons go? They can’t leave the room. They were there with the light on. They were being reflected. Now, they’re gone….

            Does that violate 1st Law?

            You need to face reality. Then spend a few years with some good physics books.

          • Nate says:

            “A simple analogy is if you found a $100 bill on the ground. You went to the bank to deposit it, but you got robbed first. Your bank account will not increase by $100 just because you were headed to the bank.”

            Stupidest analogy Ive ever seen! What does this have to do with anything?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Gordon writes (bdgwx) logic is lost on me because Gordon also writes 12:18am I have yet to see such a (heat transfer) text whereas R.W. Wood and bdgwx have seen and understood such texts”.

            I have seen such drivel printed in engineering texts myself. I am claiming they are wrong based on the 2nd law.

            Authors of texts have their strong points and weak points. Ergo, no text can be relied upon as a complete authority on a subject. The weak point is engineering texts that gloss over a two way transfer of heat between parallel plates in their utter misrepresentation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

            The initial equation by Stefan was stupid-simple. It said that radiation for a body with temperature T had the strength (intensity) of T^4 (multiplied by the SB factor). Since that derivation from Stefan came directly from experiments by Tyndall, in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire till it glowed different colours at different temperatures, the meaning is blatantly clear. Any heat transfer from that heated filament had to be in the direction dictated by the 2nd law, hot to cold.

            Do you not understand that? An example of a heated filament device is a vacuum tube. The heater is a tungsten filament and the current running through it literally boils electrons from its surface to create and electron cloud around it. With most vacuum tubes, grasping the glass envelope around the tube elements will burn your fingers, just like a hot light bulb. The heat transfer is from the heated filament to the glass via radiation since the glass is evacuated.

            Your dumb equations are suggesting heat can be transferred from the glass back to the filaments at 1400C. Where do you guys get off believing such nonsense?

            Quantum theory makes it clear that cannot happen.

            Boltzmann respected the 2nd law and tried to verify it statistically. He failed. That means to me that radiation or its statistical equivalent cannot replicate heat transfer. The supposition is that EM flows both ways between bodies of different temperatures.

            What Boltzmann did not understand, and could not understand, was the quantum relationship between Em and electrons. The electron was not discovered till the 1890s and it was not till 1913 that Bohr worked out the relationship.

            Arrogant modern scientists who obviously do not understand that quantum relationship have presumed that SB can be reversed. They understand neither SB nor the 2nd law.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”As usual, you (and Gordo) refuse to tell us what happens to the photons emitted by the cooler body which might be intercepted by the warmer one”.

            I liked Clint’s analogy of the room light being turned off. Now you see them, now you don’t. The entire universe is full of EM roaming around the vacuum of outer space.

            Here’s another. When full spectrum EM strikes an object, some EM is absorbed and some reflected. The human eye responds to the reflected EM, seeing it as whatever colour corresponds to the reflected EM. It’s the eye that adds the colour since EM has no colour. What happens the EM that is absorbed?

            Where does all the reflected EM go that the eyes misses?

            The thing is swannie, we know nothing about energy. We cannot measure it directly we can only measure the effect it has on something.

            BTW…the 1st law is not the conservation of energy law. The 1st law applies only to the relationship between heat (thermal energy) and work (mechanical energy). The first law works that way because there is an equivalence between heat and work, as discovered by Joule, the scientist.

            There is nothing in the original first law that claims energy must be conserved. There is no reference to EM in the 1st law. It’s a nice thought that energy must be conserved but what is being conserved if we don’t know what energy is?

          • Nate says:

            “Here’s an experiment for you: Turn off the light in a closed room after dark. Where do the photons go? They can’t leave the room. They were there with the light on. They were being reflected. Now, they’re gone….”

            Wait, did that happen to you? Were you scared the world disappeared?

          • Ball4 says:

            “Any heat transfer from that heated filament had to be in the direction dictated by the 2nd law, hot to cold.”

            Gordon, EMR is not heat. Do you not understand that? Planck did. EMR transfers from that heated filament.

          • Nate says:

            “It’s a nice thought that energy must be conserved but what is being conserved if we don’t know what energy is?”

            Conservation of Energy has been thoroughly tested in many situations in last 150 y or so.

            It withstood all the developments in atomic and particle physics and relativity.

            More than a ‘nice thought’.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR the moronic troll wrote:

            Turn off the light in a closed room after dark. Where do the photons go? They can’t leave the room. They were there with the light on. They were being reflected. Now, they’re gone….

            Duh. No material surface is a perfect reflector. Even a coating of gold reflects no more than 99% of the incident radiation.

            Suppose you have w parallel walls with 99% reflection. At each reflection, only 99% is reflected and after 1000 reflections, the reflected intensity (I) is:

            I = Io x 0.99^1000 = Io x 0.4317e-5

            For a million reflections:

            I = Io x 0.99^1,000,000 = 0.00000 on my hand held calculator

            Not to forget that you, as the observer, must be in the room and YOU are another lower reflectivity absorbing surface.

            Gordo the anti-scientist “likes” your analogy, then states:

            …the 1st law is not the conservation of energy law. The 1st law applies only to the relationship between heat (thermal energy) and work (mechanical energy).

            The First Law is a particular example of The Law of Conservation of Energy and is applicable to other situations beyond the study of Heat Engines which spawned the First Law. From the Wiki article:

            The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes.

            In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.[7]

            Both First and Second “Laws” were developed to describe closed mechanical systems, not IR EM radiation between objects or within gasses.

          • ClintR says:

            So Swanson, are you admitting your concern about “vanishing photons” violating 1st Law was just another example of your incompetence?

            “The energy of those photons does not vanish, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.”

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR

            Did you figure out where the photons go when the lights are turned off?

            Maybe you could find an idiot to tell you.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR bleated:

            So Swanson, are you admitting your concern about “vanishing photons” violating 1st Law was just another example of your incompetence?

            No, moron, the energy from the absorbed photons appears as thermal energy in the absorbing body, such as the Blue Plate in the GPE model. That’s why the Blue Plate exhibits a higher temperature with the Green Plate added. Your red herring about reflection has little to do when the emissivity of both plates is about 0.94, as in my GPE demonstration, which implies that the reflectivity is only 0.06.

          • ClintR says:

            Swanson, you need to go back and understand the issue. I rejected your bogus experiment for the reasons mentioned.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-507292

            You’re trying to pervert the laws so as to match your false religion. You deny reality. That’s not science.

          • Svante says:

            CO2 is long term, my graph started in 1753.
            https://tinyurl.com/y22olgrk

          • Svante says:

            … wrong thread …

          • Svante says:

            Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused, see:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

            2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still as evidenced by putting your clothes on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            He seems confused, if he thinks the GHE has anything in common with putting on clothes…

          • bobdroege says:

            You know DREMPTY, that it is bad form to insult the host.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I agree, Svante was very rude.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            It was Dr. Roy who said

            “So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.”

            Not Svante

            You should apologize to the host and watch your shit.

            And Dr. Roy is right, the greenhouse effect exists and is like putting on your clothes.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante said, “Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused…”

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah Right DREMPTY

            You do know what yeah right means, right?

            Let me translate what Svante said for you.

            Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused,

            He means that Roy Spencer is not confused,

            At All.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’ll let you into a little secret, blob…

            …I don’t care.

          • Ball4 says:

            Many commenters here already know DREMT doesn’t care for writing correctly about atm. physics, DREMT now explicity confirms their case.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, I meant I don’t care if Svante was being sarcastic or not.

          • Ball4 says:

            Many commenters already know that too, DREMT. Carry on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.

        • Bill Watson says:

          According to Gavin Schmidt, the GHE is more thought experiment than an observable state, so quibbling about the minutia of the thing is counting angels on pinheads.

        • Ghalfrunt. says:

          absolutely love this in only one statement:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          August 4, 2020 at 12:05 AM

          “The real effect that has warmed the atmosphere was explained by R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2. Nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, absorbs heat directly at the surface by conduction, and that heated air rises by convection. Since N2/O2 are poor emitters of IR, they cannot get rid of the heat till the air rises high enough and the gas expands. Then it cools naturally due to expansion.”
          ———–
          where does the heat go when it expands – it cannot be radiated since as you say n2 02 do not significantly radiate.
          As the o2 n2 rise through the atmosphere they will continually transfer heat back and forth between other atmospheric molecules as they collide (at 10,000 metres the mfp is ~2.2*10-6 metres and collisions ~0.6*10^10)/sec.)

          So you still need to postulate where the heat goes – perhaps through conduction it goes to CO2 molecules and is eventually radiated at top of atmosphere by these GHG molecules?

          Of course the heated GHG molecules also transfer heat to the non GHG molecules (backwards and forwards). It is only where the MFP of molecules is significantly long that radiation can leave the atmosphere.

          Only radiative GHG molecules can remove heat from the risen non GHGs o2 and n2 (these are gasses not solids after all). Where there are solid bodies – clouds (water droplets) earth – these will radiate through the holes in the ghg spectrum straight to space.

          Can you give me other explanations as to where the risen hot gases lose their heat?

      • Nate says:

        “AIRS 10◦N-40◦S 0.4340.047 Wm−2
        IPCC AR5 ERF 0.5080.102 Wm−2”

        The prediction and observation don’t significantly disagree.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          From Svante’s reference:

          “AR5 ERFs were computed while holding surface temperature constant, a condition that does not hold for Earth. Therefore, an additional comparison was sought to AIRS measurements of locations where surface/lower tropospheric temperatures did not significantly change. Window wavenumber trends in Figure 5 indicate this is largely true for 10◦N-40◦S and the area-weighted average forcing for this latitude range was included in [the table comparing the author’s result for the actual planet Earth to the hypothetical AR5 planet Earth].

          Nate’s his name, obfuscation is his game.

        • Nate says:

          Yes indeed, holding the temperature constant is the only sensible way to compare observed and predicted forcing.

          And when done, they do not disagree significantly. Their error ranges overlap considerably.

          Are you obfuscating or missing this key point?

  2. Midas says:

    A lot higher than I was expecting given the various (unofficial) surface records. And the second warmest July in the record.

    • Eben says:

      Muffler boy comes to tell us about his predictions – After the new data released , how clever he is.

      • Midas says:

        I explained how my predictions were wrong. Is your comprehension ability really that low?

        • Eben says:

          I know exactly what your shystering strategy is , you want to say it should be cooling because so and so, but it is not , so the CO2 and it is worse than we thought and blah blah blah, but you couldn’t say it the day before because you would look stupid if it didn’t happen, so you had to wait until the numbers got out,
          What do you think we are all stupid here we can’t see it or what

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      The no warming since July, 1998.

      • Nate says:

        Sure, if all the points in between are meaningless and thus ignored!

        • spike55 says:

          “if all the points in between are meaningless and thus ignored”

          they were all colder than 1998… your point is ???

          Why do you ignore the 1940s real temperatures and that it has been much warmer for most of the last 10,000 years

          • bdgwx says:

            spike55 said: Why do you ignore the 1940s real temperatures and that it has been much warmer for most of the last 10,000 years

            It is warmer today than at any point in at least 6000 years and possibly even over the entire holocene era.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, are those 6000 year-old temperatures based on fossilized butterfly belly-buttons, or petrified mushroom rings?

          • bdgwx says:

            Refer to the cited publication for details regarding proxy sites and types in the 12k temperature database. You can then cross reference each of the 580 cited studies to get details on the individual datasets included in the database.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3

          • ClintR says:

            580 “studies” aren’t anymore valuable than fossilized butterfly belly-buttons, or petrified mushroom rings. Nonsense is NOT science. There were no thermometers 6000 years ago.

            Get over it.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused, see:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

            2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiationincluding cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you dont believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler bodys temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, please start commenting in the right place.

          • Svante says:

            Point taken, thank you.

          • Bill Watson says:

            It is warmer today than at any point in at least 6000 years and possibly even over the entire holocene era

            If the GHE thought experiment was an accurate representation of reality, that is indeed what would be expected
            Yet retreating glaciers reveal human artifacts, tree stumps,
            forests, mountain passes, etc. And we know Scandinavians were grain farming in Greenland while at the same time there was a thriving viticulture in England. Perhaps with Michael Mann’s single little treemometer that result emerges but nothing in the real world substantiates that conclusion.

          • bdgwx says:

            Bill, we’re talking about the global mean temperature here. Scientists are well aware that regional fluctuations have a higher magnitude than global fluctuations. For example, the MWP and LIA were more pronounced in the higher latitudes from Canada from to Europe than for the Earth as a whole. Also, read the publications I linked to. This conclusion is not from a single source; far from it actually.

          • Svante says:

            Bill Watson says:

            Yet retreating glaciers reveal human artifacts, tree stumps,
            forests, mountain passes, etc.

            Those glaciers have a lot of thermal inertia, and they are nowhere near equilibrium. You will see centuries being rolled back in a matter of years.

        • Bill Watson says:

          All points in between are natural variation, or it’s aliens.

  3. Trebor says:

    Can someone explain how the warming is so even when a service like climate reanalyzer shows a cold south and a warm north accross the month?

    • Donald Dagenais says:

      Are you suggesting Dr Spencer’s team is fudging the data? If not, the answer is “the warming is so even because of the data”

    • Bindidon says:

      Trebor

      Please have a look at

      https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo

      You will see that in comparison with the Arctic, the Antarctic doesn’t warm at all:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mQl7PXiHl-8iWEOaRw1gJlZYpZLikBi/view

      Trends in C/decade for 1979-2020
      – Arctic: 0.25
      – Antarctic: 0.01

      J.-P. D.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”You will see that in comparison with the Arctic, the Antarctic doesnt warm at all:”

        The Antarctic is solid land surrounded by cold oceans whereas the Arctic is generally a cold ocean surrounded by a cold land mass. The Arctic Ocean is affected by other ocean currents like the AMO and PDO and that has to have a warming effect on the Arctic.

        I think Roy alluded to that in one of his blurbs.

  4. ren says:

    Isaias will cause floods in South and North Carolina.

  5. skeptikal says:

    I miss Salvatore’s constant reassurance that global cooling is just around the corner…. *sigh*

    • Randall Wetmore says:

      Yeah, I miss him too. He was a good guy, and I enjoyed him being around on this blog. But he was trying to predict the climate direction in ways that just aren’t possible, as there are just too many variables we don’t know about and can’t predict.

    • Richard C (NZ) says:

      skeptikal, maybe console yourself with Karsten Hausteins’s GFS T2m series:

      T2m Anomaly
      http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

      SH forecast just bounced off the bottom of the chart (-0.4). If the observation progression keeps up it’ll be “off the chart” in a few weeks. Awkward. And global anomaly around 0 then will mean no climate change in terms of temperature since mid baseline circa 1995 i.e. a global anomaly no different to 25 years ago on average and linear trends irrelevant and statistically inappropriate on that data anyway.

      Except, the global mean is obviously meaningless given the SH – NH disparity at surface. Global cooling actually is “just around the corner” of the GFS surface series but SH cooling is already around it in respect to the 1981 – 2010 reference period at least.

      The dominance of ocean in the SH makes the SH surface the leading indicator. Focusing on “global” data misses the inflexion signal already evident.

      • Richard C (NZ) says:

        The modulating effect of the ocean in the SH is easily shown by the CFSR absolute temperatures broken down by latitude:

        https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/m12-cfsr-globe-zone-tmp-monthly-1979-2020-07.gif?w=314&h=143&zoom=2

        Seasonal SH fluctuations are minor compared to the NH. Also the global long-term linear trend is dominated by the NH data. Whatever is driving the NH trend, and therefore the global trend, is non-existent in the SH. And that includes theoretical CO2 forcing.

        Above graph by Bryan from the Monthly Trends page at his Climate Concerns website:

        https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/

        The Mid SH linear trend on the anomaly graph (scroll down mid page and linked below) does not represent the data which is now little different to the beginning of the series data 1979 – 1981:

        https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/m9-cfsr-smid-ta-monthly-1979-2020-07.gif

        Note too that the 2016/17 El Nino effect so evident in UAH Global is non-existent in the CFSR Mid SH i.e. it was a NH-only phenomenon. The later non-El Nino 2019/2020 spike same. At this juncture, given the obvious lack of CO2 effect on SH temperatures, it will be ocean heat that decides the trajectory of leading indication SH data. Ocean heat is in turn solar driven in the tropics (irrespective of the IPCC’s scientifically fraudulent Ocean Heat CO2 attribution – actually just speculation without physical evidence). The modern solar Grand Maximum ended, arguably, around 2004. Planetary climate lag due to oceanic thermal inertia (“10 – 100 years” Trenberth, around 20 yrs Abdussamatov) is only now coming into contention this decade.

      • bdgwx says:

        I’ve been waiting for that long term cooling that we’ve been told has been “just around the corner” since the 1990’s. So what do you think is different this time?

        • Richard C (NZ) says:

          bdgwx >”I’ve been waiting for that long term cooling that we’ve been told has been “just around the corner” since the 1990’s. So what do you think is different this time?”

          I stated above what is different but maybe more detail needed. You’ve been waiting since the 1990s for good reason and given the thermal inertia of the ocean (Trenberth, Abdussamatov prevoius) you will probably have to wait a few more years for significant change. I’m just pointing to the leading indicator where the first sign of inflexion will show up – in SH surface temperature driven by ocean heat. GFS SH is now below the climatology i.e. no theoretical CO2 driven warming for around 25 years but possibly the point of inflexion from decades long stasis to cooling.

          The reason you have had to wait for so long is that the 1990’s was in the latter third of the 1950-2009 Solar Grand Maximum (IPCC, Usoskin et al 2014). CO2-centric thermodynamic illiterates such as IPCC solar specialists (and the Skeptical Science blog) demand an almost instantaneous change in surface temperature following the Grand Maximum for solar-centric predictions to have any credibility. Not so. Trenberth’s estimate starts at about one decade lag (“10 – 100 years”). 2009 + 10 = 2019 for first indications of cooling temperatures. I’m inclined to think the Maximum ended earlier around 2004 and subscribe to Abdussamatov’s physics estimate centered on 2 decades as being more realistic. 2004 + 20 +/- = 2024 +/-.

          Alec Rawls tried to get through to about a dozen IPCC solar specialists with a pot-of-water-on-stove-element analogy but without success (documented – look it up). In short you flick the switch and what happens – nothing. You have to wait thermal lag time for the water to heat. Same with the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system except the planetary lag time estimates vary according to method. There is a whole body of literature on this employing variously; statistics, physics, empirics etc which the IPCC studiously ignores.

          Note here that I am alluding to ‘surface forcing’, a concept the IPCC explicitly threw out in AR4 in favour of their TOA Radiative Forcing paradigm. Obviously a Surface Solar Radiation forcing (SSR – screeds in AR4/5 even though ‘surface forcing’ dismissed in AR4) is complicated by cloudiness and is orders of magnitude greater than theoretical TOA C02 forcing (see IPCC AR5).

          Except the IPCC after dismissing ‘surface forcing’ then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead (see end of comment). Apparently a TOA CO2 forcing imputes heat to the ocean, bypassing surface heat budgets, contravening thermodynamic laws, totally lacking observational evidence, and ignoring entire bodies of radiation-matter physics/optics e.g. proprietary medical lazer physics from 1970s dealing with water (a good start for say, subsequent lazer eye surgery) pertaining to the microphysics of the atmosphere-ocean interface.

          IPCC CO2-centric solar specialists bat away the solar argument with reference to their as yet unproven and currently wildly astray CO2 forced models (esp SH). Dr Mike Lockwood is at the forefront of this but I note that in his papers (not his press statements) history shows that once solar forced cooling starts it is more rapid that the prior warming.

          Abdussamatov shows by physics method that the planetary climate system is entering energy deficit after the surplus built up over the Modern Solar Grand Maximum i.e. a ccoling period ahead and no more warming can eventuate until solar conditions change radically because solar is the energy-in source to the system.

          I’ll follow this comment with the IPCC graph that demands CO2-imputed ocean heat for their theory to reconcile with observations.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            The IPCC graph that demands imputed CO2-RF ocean heat for their theory to reconcile with observations.

            IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

            Note the current graph is different from the original because it was immediately obvious in the original that atmospheric heat storage (in ZetaJoules ZJ – 21 zeroes) is negligible and not worth consideration.

            IPCC theory is on the left, observations on the right. Ignoring their laughable solar forcing estimate on the left and focusing on Storage (blue) on the right it is still immediately obvious that the IPCC’s TOA CO2 Radiative Forcing paradigm is wholly inadequate to explain total Storage. They desperately need a CO2 – ocean heat attribution, by scientific fraud if need be.

            Note that this graph is truncated to a brief time period beginning 1970. But the IPCC’s human attribution begins 1951 and their forcing paradigm begins 1750. The units are ZetaJoules (ZJ) i.e. Watts/m2 at TOA is actually Joules per second for each m2 of TOA multiplied by area of TOA multiplied by number of seconds back to 1750 (It’s cumulative).

            Here’s where it gets awkward for the IPCC. They state in FAQs that the ocean “has absorbed about 93% of the combined heat stored by warmed air, sea, and land, and melted ice between 1971 and 2010.”

            So air land and melted ice only accounts for 7% of accumulated Storage. The IPCC are very quiet about storage in the air as a fraction of the 7%. At that point air becomes no concern so best not highlight the fact. Air is hardly considered a heat sink so storage is negligible, it is simply a medium of energy transfer from surface to space (the temperature of which UAH monitors). Ocean on the other hand is a gigantic heat sink (heat storage medium).

            The graph shows just short of 250 ZJ 1970 – 2012ish. The IPCC have to attribute, just in this truncated period, about 230 ZJ minus their solar forcing estimate to theoretical TOA CO2 Radiative Forcing because if they don’t their their theory on the left does not reconcile with observations on the right.

            The IPCC’s ocean heat attribution states: “Airsea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to …[AGW]”. They have no physical evidence for this. They only offer the circular reasoning of CO2-forced model studies. They use the word “expected”, Latin root spec from which we get the word speculation. Speculation is all they have after 25 years and 5 Assessment Reports.

            This is scientific fraud.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            >This is scientific fraud.

            Either by incompetence (civil fraud) or intent (criminal fraud).

          • bdgwx says:

            Earth’s energy imbalance is sitting at +0.6 W/m^2 (at least). Even if the agent that is producing the radiative force ceases to increase it’ll take another 20 years before that imbalance is equilibrated. So barring the spontaneous appearance of an unpredictable negative forcing agent like a large volcanic eruption or whatever we’re still going to be waiting awhile for that cooling that contrarians keep promising an that’s if the agent positive radiative forcing agent increase wanes.

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx, your “energy imbalance” needs to include a range of about +/- 40 W/m^2, to be realistic.

            I’ve had to correct you on this before.

          • bdgwx says:

            Per Cheng 2020 the OHC uptake uncertainty is about +- 0.01 W/m^2.

            You can provide citation for your +- 40 W/m^2 claim so that we can all review it?

          • ClintR says:

            Annually TSI varies that much.

            Of course you don’t want to include solar in your “energy balance”.

          • bdgwx says:

            Instantaneous TSI varies by that much.

            Average TSI varies by only a couple of W/m^2 at most.

            But that’s all moot because TSI is NOT the same thing as Earth’s energy imbalance.

            +- 40 W/m^2 variation of Earth’s energy imbalance is an absurd claim on your part. It should be obvious from first principal reasoning that -40 W/m^2 and +40 W/m^2 are well beyond what is even theoretically possible given the current state of Earth’s climate system.

          • ClintR says:

            Glad I was able to get your attention, bdgwx.

            You don’t know anything about Earth’s energy balance, only what you have learned from the nonsense your cult puts out.

            Within a calendar year, TSI varies by more than 40 W/m^2, up and down, from Solar Constant. This is due to Earth’s orbit, which puts us closer to Sun at perihelion (about 1405 W/m^2), and farther away from Sun at aphelion (about 1315 W/m^2).

            After albedo, the results are about 984 W/m^2 and 921 W/m^2, a difference of 63 W/m^2.

            Translation: Solar input to the surface varies over 60 W/m^2 annually, and it doesn’t even show in global temperatures, such as “UAH Global”!

            Earth’s systems, involving something called “physics”, manage global temperatures. A change of 60 W/m^2 is easily handled, and you’re worried about a bogus 0.6 W/m^2?

            There’s even more reality for you, if you had a willingness to learn.

          • bdgwx says:

            TSI is NOT the same thing as Earth’s energy imbalance.

            An EEI of +0.6 W/m^2 is large enough on its own, but for it to persist for decades as the T^4 law tries to pull it back toward zero makes it very large indeed. Your interannual TSI variation of 60 W/m^2 amounts to near 0 W/m^2 of radiative force over the course of a solar cycle. Even the trough-to-peak of the grand cycles is likely smaller than +0.3 W/m^2. So yeah…an EEI of +0.6 W/m^2 is a big deal.

          • ClintR says:

            I NEVER said that TSI was the same thing as Earth’s energy imbalance, bdgwx. That’s just your usual attempt to distract and distort. You have to use such tricks because you can’t face reality. Avoiding reality is why you’re an idiot.

            If the planet can handle a change in solar input 100 times your bogus 0.6 W/m^2, without you even knowing it, that should tell you something. But, you are unable to see reality.

            And we haven’t even discussed why your 0.6 W/m^2 is bogus….

          • bdgwx says:

            My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases. I typically cite Cheng 2020, but others provide OHC estimates as well.

            You’re still conflating TSI and EEI when you say things like “If the planet can handle a change in solar input 100 times your bogus 0.6 W/m^2, without you even knowing it, that should tell you something.”

            That’s like saying if St. Louis can handle a variation of 133F between highs and low then it should be able to handle a persistent 1.3F/yr rise in the annual mean temperature indefinitely. Surely you understand the absurdity of that argument.

            And we’re still not talking about TSI here. We’re talking about EEI.

          • ClintR says:

            No bdgwx, your “conservative estimate” is pure nonsense. Your “cites” mean nothing when they violate the laws of physics.

            Earth has energy imbalances constantly, but it has mechanisms for dealing with them. “Weather” is nothing more that Earth handling energy imbalances. Events like El Niños and hurricanes are prime examples of Earth handling energy imbalances.

            You are unable to understand any of this because your mind is closed to reality.

          • bdgwx says:

            ENSO and tropical cyclones transport heat from one reservoir or region to another. They do not, at least not directly, impact the EEI. Weather moves the heat around. It does not cause energy to accumulate or dissipate on a planetary scale over long periods of time.

            The figure of +0.6 W/m^2 for the EEI is well established. It is not disputed in any significant way. Though there is a range of estimates for it with +0.6 W/m^2 being on the lower end of the range. I believe Dr. Spencer has given +0.8 W/m^2 for the value in the past. Some estimates go as high as +1.0 W/m^2. But +40 W/m^2? Not even in the realm of possibility. It’s your +- 40 W/m^2 claim that is bogus.

          • ClintR says:

            All wrong bdgwx, as usual.

            El Niñs and cyclones/hurricanes transport energy from oceans to atmosphere where it ends up being radiated to space.

            The figure of +0.6 W/m^2 for the EEI is well established nonsense. It is not reality. You just find it in “papers”, and believe it without any understanding of the numerous flaws.

            There is no evidence you understand any of this. That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx > “My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases.”

            Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that “…the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead”

            The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCC’s theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface. That is:

            +0.6 W/m^2 TOA and EEI
            +0.6 W/m^2 Surface EI (the uncertainties much greater than TOA).

            So the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence. The IPCC MUST claim CO2 – OHC attribution because that is all they have. All of their theoretical anthropogenic forcings are redundant. They have no effect whatsoever between Surface and TOA.

            The IPCC speculatively claim “air-sea fluxes” i.e. an air-to-sea energy transfer (Peter Minnett’s insulation theory notwithstanding, not quantified, and non-IPCC anyway), to be the surface forcing attributable to anthro cause (mainly TOA CO2) that has produced over 200 ZJ of supposedly excess OHC. Here is the IPCC’s Surface budget from their AR5 cited EEI paper:

            ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ – Stephens et al (2012)
            https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580

            Figure 1 TOA budget Surface budget
            https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg

            I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCC’s anthro attributable “air-sea fluxes” i.e. a net radiative flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.

            Net IR-C (LW) flux is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) i.e. a surface cooling flux. The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent. The excess surface energy is obviously coming from the solar spectrum (SW, IR A/B).

            The IPCC contradict their own surface energy budget. As previously, this is undeniable scientific fraud.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx > “My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases.”

            Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that “…the IPCC after dismissing ‘surface forcing’ then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead”

            The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCC’s theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface. That is:

            +0.6 W/m^2 TOA and EEI
            +0.6 W/m^2 Surface EI (the uncertainties much greater than TOA).

            So the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence. The IPCC MUST claim CO2 – OHC attribution because that is all they have. All of their theoretical anthropogenic forcings are redundant. They have no effect whatsoever between Surface and TOA.

            Part 1 (to avoid spam trap) Part 2 follows

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Part 2 of comment addressed to bdgwx.

            The IPCC speculatively claim “air-sea fluxes” i.e. an air-to-sea energy transfer (Peter Minnett’s insulation theory notwithstanding, not quantified, and non-IPCC anyway), to be the surface forcing attributable to anthro cause (mainly TOA CO2) that has produced over 200 ZJ of supposedly excess OHC. Here is the IPCC’s Surface budget from their AR5 cited EEI paper:

            ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ – Stephens et al (2012)
            https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580

            Figure 1 TOA budget Surface budget
            https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg

            I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCC’s anthro attributable “air-sea fluxes” i.e. a net radiative flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.

            Net IR-C (LW) flux is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) i.e. a surface cooling flux. The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent. The excess surface energy is obviously coming from the solar spectrum (SW, IR A/B).

            The IPCC contradict their own surface energy budget. As previously, this is undeniable scientific fraud.

          • Ball4 says:

            “The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent.”

            Thus, according to Richard, Earth air and sea do not radiate at all, their emitted “fluxes” being “non-existent”.

            This assertion by Richard is not supportable in field of spectroscopy, or if so, please do so Richard, with instrumental data.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4 >”Thus, according to Richard, Earth air and sea do not radiate at all, their emitted “fluxes” being “non-existent”.”

            Rubbish, you fail to comprehend. Read my case again with attention to detail. The relevant paragraph in respect to Stephens et al Fig 1 repeated here for your assistance:

            “Net IR-C (LW) flux is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) i.e. a surface cooling flux. The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent. The excess surface energy is obviously coming from the solar spectrum (SW, IR A/B).”

            Clearly I am referring to the emitted fluxes of earth air and sea in the IPCC’s citation Stephens et al Fig 1 i.e. the net of OLR – DLR surface IR-C fluxes is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) – a surface cooling flux. The IPCC posits an air-to-sea transfer of energy (“air-sea fluxes”) i.e. an ongoing and significant (to account for over 200 ZJ) IR-C warming flux totally contrary to the observed 53 W/m^2 cooling flux and totally absent from the IPCC’s own surface energy budget. If that IPCC-posited IR-C warming flux was actually occurring it would show up in the IPCC’s own surface energy budget – it doesn’t. That’s scientific fraud by the IPCC.

            Ball4 >”This assertion by Richard is not supportable in field of spectroscopy, or if so, please do so Richard, with instrumental data.”

            Again, you obviously do not understand what you read and that I explicitly referred to global estimates of surface IR-C fluxes by IPCC citation Stephens et al 2012. They in turn derive their estimate from spectroscopic instrumental data (SURFace RADiation network SURFRAD, Baseline Surface Radiation Network BSRN). So in answer to your request, the information you require was already provided.

          • Ball4 says:

            “the observed 53 W/m^2 cooling flux and totally absent from the IPCC’s own surface energy budget.”

            The multi-annualized 53 is not observed Richard, the 53 is calculated difference from the SURFRAD et. al. multi-annually measured LWIR 398 looking down toward the L&O surface and 345 looking up from the L&O surface inclusive of downdrafts & rain shown and discussed in Stephens 2012 EB.

            The 398 and 345 (in part) contain incoherent photons which do not interact like opposing fire hose water streams that possess mass.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4 >”The multi-annualized 53 is not observed Richard, the 53 is calculated difference from the SURFRAD et. al. multi-annually measured LWIR 398 looking down toward the L&O surface and 345 looking up from the L&O surface inclusive of downdrafts & rain shown and discussed in Stephens 2012 EB.”

            I know 53 is calculated because I calculated it from 398 – 345. Stephens et al do not bother to show net in Fig 1 even though oceanography papers e.g. Fairall et al 1976, are only concerned with the net effect which in this case is OLR (cooling). In other words, Stephens et al could dispense with the two fluxes, OLR and DLR, and just show a single 53 W.m2 OLR surface cooling flux. Here’s the surface budget again:

            Stephens et al 2012 Figure 1 Surface budget
            https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg

            And yes I did point out that 398 and 345 are derived from observations (“measured” as you say). There’s whole ventures devoted to this, SURFRAD and BSRN as I stated. Martin Wild stands out in publications on this of which I’ve scoured several of his including ‘Enlightening Global Dimming and Brightening’ where tendencies in SSR (Fig 2) are instructive in respect to the magnitude of forcing (theoretical CO2 forcing fades into insignificance):

            Martin Wild publications
            https://publons.com/researcher/2690115/martin-wild/publications/

            Ball4 >”The 398 and 345 (in part) contain incoherent photons which do not interact like opposing fire hose water streams that possess mass.”

            I did not say they did. You are making up stuff with an implication that is my case – it isn’t, it is yours only in the making.

            Fact remains there is no net IR-C “air-sea fluxes” to heat the ocean in the IPCC’s surface budget contrary to their speculation (and contrary to the Clausius statement of 2LoT) and their OHC attribution. And hence scientific fraud by the IPCC.

            Abdussamatov’s paraphrase of Clausius in respect to the earth worth repeating here – “Heat rises up, not down”.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            BTW Ball4, Martin Wild is a co-author of the Stephens et al 2012 Earths Energy Balance paper referenced upthread:

            ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ (2012)
            Graeme L. Stephens; Juilin Li; Martin Wild; Carol Anne Clayson; Norman Loeb; Seiji Kato; Tristan L’Ecuyer; Paul W. Stackhouse; Matthew Lebsock; Timothy Andrews

          • Ball4 says:

            Richard, heat does not rise as you unfortunately repeat. That is convection when fluid is warmed from below in a gravity field forcing packets of the fluid to rise until packet temperature equilibrates with surrounding fluid temperature again. Various youtube videos will show you the effect.

            You are making progress though except “Stephens et al could dispense with the two fluxes, OLR and DLR, and just show a single 53 W.m2 OLR surface cooling flux.”

            No. There is no single 53 photon flux as would result from opposing firehose water streams. The multi-annualized temporal and spatial measurements of upwelling & downwelling radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer from L&O surface and radiative transfer TOA need to be supported (as do Stephens et. al., Wild et. al. and many others). This reporting provides reasonable confidence in the calculated net result of ~53 surface and ~0.6 TOA to eliminate the basis for scientific fraud accusations such as Richard writes.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4, your first statement is internally contradictory:

            Ball4 >”heat does not rise…”

            Ball4 >”That is convection when fluid is warmed from below in a gravity field forcing packets of the fluid to rise…”

            When fluid is warmed that is, by definition, – heat: the form of energy that is transferred between systems or objects with different temperatures (flowing from the high-temperature system to the low-temperature system).

            The warmed fluid rises up from the high-temperature system to the low temperature system, not down as you appear to agree. Similarly warmed tropospheric air rises up from the relatively warm surface to the much cooler mid and upper troposphere, not down.

            This is however a digression because the energy in question (“air-sea fluxes”) is radiative energy according to the IPCC, which until radiation actually strikes matter and excites molecules to above 0 Kelvin is not heat. The surface budget shows both heat (two – sensible and latent) and radiation fluxes (two – short and longwave)

            Ball4 > [Me]Stephens et al could dispense with the two fluxes, OLR and DLR, and just show a single 53 W.m2 OLR surface cooling flux.

            [You] “No. There is no single 53 photon flux as would result from opposing firehose water streams.”

            There you go again with your made up “firehose” analogy which you cannot pin on me – that is your fiction not mine. But yes, the two fluxes do result in a 53 W.m2 cooling flux at the surface (OLR). I cited Fairall et al but with typo, the year was 1996 and it is in-situ measurements in the tropics:

            ‘Cool‐skin and warm‐layer effects on sea surface temperature’
            Fairall et al (1996)
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215721709_Cool-skin_and_warm-layer_effects_on_sea_surface_temperature

            See Table 5 Average Bulk Energy Budget Terms. The effective radiative fluxes are Rns (+) and Rnl (-). The downwelling and outgoing shortwave and longwave fluxes are of no account individually. The net Rnl flux is outgoing (-) in all 3 cases (OLR). Note that in the tropics Rnl is a little above the global average as is to be expected.

            Ball4 >”The multi-annualized temporal and spatial measurements of upwelling & downwelling radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer from L&O surface and radiative transfer TOA need to be supported (as do Stephens et. al., Wild et. al. and many others). This reporting provides reasonable confidence in the calculated net result of ~53 surface and ~0.6 TOA to eliminate the basis for scientific fraud accusations such as Richard writes.”

            Thank you Ball4, you have just corroborated my case for IPCC scientific fraud with “This reporting provides reasonable confidence in the calculated net result of ~53 surface…”

            53 W.m2 OLR at the surface in Stephens et al Figure 1 (similar to tropics in Fairall et al Table 5 above – which is “reporting” is it not?) is a radiative surface COOLING flux. It is not possible for such a flux to heat the ocean. Therefore the IPCC must be speculating (their own word “expect”) on non-existent radiative surface warming fluxes that have NOT been identified in their own surface energy budget.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4 >”…the calculated net result of ~53 surface and ~0.6 TOA”

            You are conflating two different metrics here. 53 W.m2 pertains only to the net IR-C radiative component of the surface budget. 0.6 W.m2 TOA pertains to the net of incoming SW in the solar spectrum (the IR in which is IR-A/B) and the outgoing IR-C.

            However the 0.6 W.m2 imbalance at TOA has already occurred at the surface (see Stephens et al Fig 1 Surface Budget). The brings us full circle to my comment way back in this thread in response to bdgwx:

            [Me] >”Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead

            The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCCs theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface. That is:

            +0.6 W/m^2 TOA and EEI
            +0.6 W/m^2 Surface EI (the uncertainties much greater than TOA).

            So the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence. The IPCC MUST claim CO2 OHC attribution because that is all they have. All of their theoretical anthropogenic forcings are redundant. They have no effect whatsoever between Surface and TOA.”

            End of quote, but not end of story. This scientific fraud is not going away for the IPCC.

          • Ball4 says:

            “When fluid is warmed that is, by definition, – heat:”

            No. The fluid is heated when increasing its thermodynamic internal energy by definition. There is no internal contradiction.

            “53 W.m2 OLR at the surface in Stephens et al Figure 1 (similar to tropics in Fairall et al Table 5 above – which is “reporting” is it not?) is a radiative surface COOLING flux.”

            No. The 53 is not OLR it is a calculated net from measured components radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer, surface OLR is 398.

            “53 W.m2 pertains only to the net IR-C radiative component of the surface budget.”

            No. The 53 is more than radiation, it is a calculated net from measured components of radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer; multiannual surface OLR radiation upwelling is 398 +/- 5 in Stephens 2012.

            “However the 0.6 W.m2 imbalance at TOA has already occurred at the surface”

            No. Per Stephens (you did read it?): “The average annual excess of net TOA radiation constrained by OHC is 0.6 +/- 0.4 Wm^-2 (90% confidence) since 2005 when Argo data (ref 14) became available”.

            Richard has no accurate basis demonstrated for writing: “This scientific fraud is not going away for the IPCC.”

            IPCC data for CO2 forcing predate the CERES satellite radiometer and Argo thermometer era by many decades. In the CERES satellite era calibrated to Argo results through early 2018 surface temperature forcing is observed with 95% confidence to be from TOA LW fluxes exhibiting pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. SW TOA flux variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage.

            The CERES satellite/Argo era is too short to observe with enough reasonable confidence the smaller added ppm CO2 climate signal. As CERES/Argo observation time increases the CO2 climate signal will emerge also at 95% confidence.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Had a comment go into spam trap so I’ll break it up some more.

            Ball4, Part 1.

            >”The fluid is heated when increasing its thermodynamic internal energy by definition. There is no internal contradiction.”

            Yes, and then it (molecularly excited fluid molecules i.e. heat) rises as you stated in contradiction to your “heat does not rise”.

            >”No. The 53 is not OLR it is a calculated net from measured components radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer, surface OLR is 398.”

            Rubbish. 53 is the net of 398 OLR minus 345 DLR. Actually 398 – 345.6 = 52.4 W.m2 OLR. This is the net terrestrial radiation flux. The two heat fluxes, sensible and latent, are NOT included in this calculation.

            >”No. The 53 is more than radiation, it is a calculated net from measured components of radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer”

            Again, rubbish. Do the math, 398 OLR – 345.6 DLR = 52.4 W.m2 OLR. I simply didn’t bother with the decimal .6 to arrive at 53.

            [Me]However the 0.6 W.m2 imbalance at TOA has already occurred at the surface [in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence.]

            [You]”No. Per Stephens (you did read it?): The average annual excess of net TOA radiation constrained by OHC is 0.6 +/- 0.4 Wm^-2 (90% confidence) since 2005 when Argo data (ref 14) became available.

            Look at Stephens et al Figure 1 again:

            https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg

            There are two energy budgets – TOA and surface, both state a 0.6 W.m2 imbalance. The major planetary energy transfer sequence is sun > ocean > atmosphere + space. Therefore the 0.6 surface imbalance occurs first (the “constraint”) and thereafter is no different at TOA where it remains 0.6 contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theoretical anthro TOA forcings, CO2 uppermost but redundant.

            Part 2 follows

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4, my comments are getting caught in spam so I’m giving up on this (probably too many links).

            Except to say Dr Roy Clark pointed out 2009/10 (‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ in various forms) that LWIR is not a heating agent on surface materials. It only penetrates water 10 microns effective and 100 microns max, about the thickness of a human hair. So it cannot heat the bulk ocean, solar radiation does that.

            John McLean raised the issue in comments on AR5 Chapter 10 (see comment no. 10-234 – rejected of course). Look up:

            Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft Chapter 10

            “This claim is unsustainable. Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection. Not only is there no method by which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can cause dep ocean warming, but also chapter 3 failed to describe any physical process by which heat could sink. Remove the statement. [John McLean, Australia]”

            And still they fail to provide AO microphysics process, observation and quantification on a global scale to support their speculated “air-sea fluxes”.

            Re Argo era data, a CO2 oceanic climate signal has not and will never emerge because as above, LWIR is not a heating agent on surface materials. Solar radiation is the ocean heating agent in the tropics.

            BTW, the oceanography paper ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western equatorial warm pool ……’ Cronin and McPhadden 1997 also dispenses with up and down LWIR components and only deals with the effective net.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4, think about your quote from Stephens et al:

            >”…..surface temperature forcing is observed with 95% confidence to be from TOA LW fluxes….”

            This is the fraud in a nutshell. The IPCC explicitly dismissed ‘surface forcing’ in AR4 (look it up in AR4) in favour of their TOA RF paradigm as I’ve already stated previously. What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence. The only “evidence” they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out – that is NOT physical evidence. That same circular reasoning was used to reject John McLean’s comment on AR5 Chapter 10 that I referred to previously.

            They are asserting that “TOA LW fluxes” (unquantified), somehow (no AO interface process offered), impute heat to the ocean thereby bypassing their own surface energy budget.

            The reason for their scientific fraud goes like this. Their CO2-forced models generate humungous amounts of excess energy at TOA over time (over 200 ZJ since 1970ish), far more than the observed TOA 0.6 W.m2 imbalance produces. So they have to sink their excess energy somewhere, anywhere other than the troposphere and with sufficient heat capacity. That only leaves the oceanic heat sink that they MUST invoke to sink their excess TOA energy.

            Without their speculated (“expected”) CO2 – OH attribution, the IPCC’s man-made climate change conjecture is stone cold dead. Their conjecture is perpetuated by this fraud.

          • Ball4 says:

            “What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence.”

            On the contrary, that statement is directly traceable to observed multiannual data (MODIS, CERES, SORCE, Argo, UAH series, hydrology, et. al.), it is Richard’s claim of fraud that is an assertion without accurate, observed evidence to support Richard’s claims.

            “The only “evidence” they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out…”

            No. Stephens, Wild et. al. EB papers are not based on climate models. Richard evidently hasn’t read the papers to learn the source of their data.

            “That only leaves the oceanic heat sink..”

            No. That is the largest observed (Argo) sink at ocean depths 0-1800m, then the observed sink at lower ocean depths, and then the observed sink of ice warming/melt along with atmospheric and lithospheric warming measured within meaningful error bars.

            Richard, it is very clear you haven’t studied the field very deeply or thoroughly. Richard’s fraud claims have no reliable basis.

          • Svante says:

            Richard C (NZ) says:

            The only “evidence” they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out

            You missed my first message on this page.

            Adding 35 ppm CO2 2002-2019 cut 0.4 W/m^2 from the TOA spectrum.

            Nature moves towards equilibrium at the surface, the TOA, and everywhere in between.

          • bdgwx says:

            Richard said: Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead

            I’m not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

            Richard said: The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCCs theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface.

            Well yeah…EEI is expected to be considerably less than ERF (if that is what you meant by “TOA forcing”). What are you thinking the discrepancy is here?

            Richard said: Therefore the 0.6 surface imbalance occurs first (the “constraint”) and thereafter is no different at TOA where it remains 0.6 contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theoretical anthro TOA forcings, CO2 uppermost but redundant.

            Again…I’m not understanding the “contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theorectical anthro TOA forcings” part. It almost seems like you’re conflating EEI and ERF here. EEI is expected to be much smaller than ERF. Remember…the plant has already warmed 1.0C. If we assume a reasonable 0.6C per W/m^2 for the sensitivity average since 1750 then that equilibrates 1.7 W/m^2 of the +2.3 W/m^2 ERF leaving 0.6 W/m^2 as the current imbalance.

            Richard said: ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ – Stephens et al (2012)
            https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580

            You do realize that the IPCC uses Graeme Stephens and Martin Wild as primary sources right?

          • bdgwx says:

            Richard said: The reason for their scientific fraud goes like this. Their CO2-forced models generate humungous amounts of excess energy at TOA over time (over 200 ZJ since 1970ish), far more than the observed TOA 0.6 W.m2 imbalance produces.

            From 1990 to 2010 the ocean took up about 200 ZJ. 0.6 W/m^2 over 20 years is about 200 ZJ. The ocean accounts for > 90% of the uptake so it provides a reasonable order of magnitude estimate (if not conservative) of EEI. I don’t see the discrepancy here. And I certainly don’t see any fraud.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx >”From 1990 to 2010 the ocean took up about 200 ZJ. 0.6 W/m^2 over 20 years is about 200 ZJ.”

            Yes, no disagreement. And the ocean heating agent is solar radiation in the tropics, or more specifically Surface Solar Radiation (SSR). Except the IPCC claim the SSR-forced ocean heat for TOA GHG forcing. That is absurd. They have absolutely NO physical evidence for that and their own surface energy budget (Stephens et al Fig 1 upthead and see below) precludes it anyway.

            Stephens et al Figure 1
            https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg

            bdgwx >”The ocean accounts for > 90% of the uptake so it provides a reasonable order of magnitude estimate (if not conservative) of EEI. I dont see the discrepancy here.”

            Correct (actually 93%). Although there is massive uncertainty at the surface: 0.6 W.m2 +/-17. So the surface estimate range is 17.6 to -16.4. I’m not quibbling though. Fact remains that the TOA EI has occurred first at the surface because ocean uptake occurs before dissipation to space and the central estimate remains unchanged from 0.6 at the surface and TOA subsequently in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system.

            This is where it gets problematic for the IPCC because their anthro TOA forcings overshoot actual EI and the margin is widening rapidly. The IPCCs excess TOA forcing means they have a huge amount of THEORETICAL excess energy to reconcile with observations. Hence their need to invoke observed ocean heat accumulation at the surface (but after dismissing ‘surface forcing’ in AR4) which is attributable to SSR given the surface energy budget (more solar input than energy output at the surface).

            At this point I’ll repeat my original challenge to you:

            [Me] – “I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.”

            bdgwx >”And I certainly dont see any fraud.

            Attempt the challenge bdgwx, then maybe you will see the scientific fraud (which could just incompetence rather than intent i.e. civil, not criminal).

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Svante >”Adding 35 ppm CO2 2002-2019 cut 0.4 W/m^2 from the TOA spectrum.”

            In IPCC theory that is. In other words theoretical CO2 TOA forcing increased 0.4 W.m2 over that period (I say without bothering to to check the calc with ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0)).

            In reality however an observed and documented EEI update similar to Stephens et al 2012 has yet to be published for the period to 2019 since last update (to my knowledge). Given the IPCCs theoretical anthro TOA forcings did not comport with the observed 0.6 W.m2 EEI in AR5, has anything changed to make you think IPCC TOA RF theory will reconcile with an observed EEI in AR6?

          • Svante says:

            Richard C (NZ) says: “In IPCC theory that is.”

            No, it was a measurement, and the IPCC was quite a bit off center in their estimate.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx

            [Me] “Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead”

            bdgwx >”Im not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?”

            You wrote My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases. Ocean heat (OH) accumulation is a ‘surface forcing’. In AR4 the IPCC explicitly dismissed (look it up) the concept in favour of their TOA Radiative Forcing (RF) paradigm. Without the observed OH storage at surface the IPCCs theoretical TOA forcings do not reconcile with observations in terms of planetary energy accumulation in ZJ. Except they cannot claim surface OH for their TOA attribution when they have no physical evidence and the OH accumulation is SSR-forced anyway (more solar energy input to ocean than energy output).

            [Me] “The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCCs theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface.”

            bdgwx >”Well yeahEEI is expected to be considerably less than ERF (if that is what you meant by TOA forcing). What are you thinking the discrepancy is here?”

            No, refer this table:

            IPCC TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing
            https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg

            Total net anthro 1.6 W.m2, and as Svante points out the CO2 component has increased somewhat since then. At that time TOA theory was 1 W.m2 greater than the TOA actual of 0.6 W.m2, hence the massive excess generated on the theory side of IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1 which I’ve linked to previously but will put in following comment to avoid spam trap.

            [Me] “Therefore the 0.6 surface imbalance occurs first (the “constraint”) and thereafter is no different at TOA where it remains 0.6 contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theoretical anthro TOA forcings, CO2 uppermost but redundant.”

            bdgwx >”AgainIm not understanding the contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theorectical anthro TOA forcings part. It almost seems like youre conflating EEI and ERF here.”

            No, see above.

            bdgwx >”You do realize that the IPCC uses Graeme Stephens and Martin Wild as primary sources right?”

            [Me way upthread] “Here is the IPCCs Surface budget from their AR5 cited EEI paper:An update on Earths energy balance in light of the latest global observations Stephens et al (2012) [linked]”

            So yes, I do.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx, from my previous Comment:

            The IPCC graph that demands imputed TOA CO2-RF ocean heat for their theory to reconcile with observations.

            IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4 quoting Stephens et al: >..surface temperature forcing is observed with 95% confidence to be from TOA LW fluxes.

            [Me]What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence.

            Ball4 >”On the contrary, that statement is directly traceable to observed multiannual data (MODIS, CERES, SORCE, Argo, UAH series, hydrology, et. al.), …”

            Remember your quote is confined to “TOA LW fluxes” i.e. terrestrial radiation in the IR-C spectrum (see Wikipedia Infrared page for IR categories). Stephens et al are unknowingly asserting (as does the IPCC narrative) that an unquantified stream of photons, energized at minuscule terrestrial IR-C energy-per-photon levels, orders of magnitude LESS than solar IR-A/B (milli electron Volts meV vs electron Volts eV – see EM Spectrum table below), is directed back down to the surface from upper troposphere (not TOA note) to provide the energy that has produced observed OH accumulation that apparently CANNOT possibly be attributed to SSR (UV, Vis, IR-A/B). This is absurd.

            Electromagnetic spectrum
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

            The microphysics of the AO interface precludes “TOA LW fluxes” attribution as I’ve previously detailed and the posited “TOA LW fluxes” are not identified in Stephens et al’s surface energy budget anyway (net LW is OLR). So I’ll repeat to you the challenge I’ve laid to bdgwx that he has so far avoided:

            I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else [i.e. you Ball4]) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.

            [Me]The only evidence they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out

            Ball4 >”No. Stephens, Wild et. al. EB papers are not based on climate models.”

            I didn’t say they were. You’re making up stuff again that I’ve never said. Whether Stephens et al or any other IPCC-aligned climate scientist(s), they all have the same problem: how to reconcile their “robust evidence” (see comment re John Mclean/AR5 Chapter 10 upthread) of climate model output with observations. Turns out they offer no microphysics and observations of the AO interface globally to justify their posited “air-sea fluxes” (IPCC) which is equivalent to Stephens et al’s “TOA LW fluxes”. If you disagree I challenge you Ball4 to quote that specific evidence (i.e. AO microphysics, global AO observations) from an IPCC document, preferably AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.

            [Me]That only leaves the oceanic heat sink..

            Ball4 >”No. That is the largest observed (Argo) sink at ocean depths 0-1800m, then the observed sink at lower ocean depths, and then the observed sink of ice warming/melt along with atmospheric and lithospheric warming measured within meaningful error bars.”

            The bulk ocean makes up 93% of the observed increased “storage” (IPCC), and with the far greater OH already present is the largest planetary heat sink – period. Nothing else even comes close. Everything else is negligible e.g. “air” (IPCC), “land” (IPCC), and “melted ice” (IPCC) only makes up 7% of the observed increased “storage” when added together.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Svante

            Richard C (NZ) says: In IPCC theory that is.

            Svante >”No, it was a measurement, and the IPCC was quite a bit off center in their estimate.”

            Could you provide some reference information on this please Svante? I need to know exactly the details of what you’re putting forward here before engaging any further (this is genuine interest BTW).

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4

            [Me] “That same circular reasoning was used to reject John McLeans comment on AR5 Chapter 10 that I referred to previously.”

            That’s this:

            Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft Chapter 10
            https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch10_WG1AR5SOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf

            Comment no. 10-234
            This claim is unsustainable. Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection. Not only is there no method by which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can cause dep ocean warming, but also chapter 3 failed to describe any physical process by which heat could sink. Remove the statement. [John McLean, Australia]

            Response
            Rejected. The assessment of chapter 3 shows robust evidence for ocean warming and sea level rise from observations and section 10.4 shows robust evidence for this warming being anthropogenic.

            If you follow your nose in 10.4 you will find model studies cited – NOT physical evidence. The response is a bluff and the “robust evidence” non-existent, hence scientific fraud.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4

            [Me] “If you follow your nose in 10.4 you will find model studies cited – NOT physical evidence. The response is a bluff and the “robust evidence” non-existent, hence scientific fraud.”

            AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

            10.4.1 [Page 903]
            “Air–sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences.”

            “Expected”?

            After 25 years and 5 Assessment Reports that’s all they’ve got?

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4, AR5 10.4.1 again:

            “….the observed ocean changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenically induced atmospheric changes from GHGs and aerosol concentrations”.

            “consistent with”? “expected”?

            This is pseudo-science. Where’s the AO interface microphysics?

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4, AR5 10.4.1 again (again):

            “Considering that individual ocean basins are affected by different
            observational and modelling uncertainties and that internal variability is larger at smaller scales, detection of significant anthropogenic forcing through space and time studies (Palmer et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2012) provides more compelling evidence of human influence at regional scales of near-surface ocean warming observed during the second half of the 20th century.”

            The first citation is obviously models – NOT physical evidence:

            Stochastic Parametrization and Model Uncertainty
            Palmer et al., 2009

            Second cite:

            The fingerprint of human-induced changes in the oceans salinity
            and temperature fields
            Pierce et al., 2012
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL053389

            2. Data and Methods
            “Briefly, we compare three-dimensional temperature and salinity fields from 20 global climate models from the CMIP5 archive [Taylor et al., 2012] (Table S1) to 50 years of observations (19552004) from the National Oceanographic Data Center [Levitus et al., 2012].

            Again, models – NOT physical evidence.

          • Ball4 says:

            1:48am: “I didn’t say they were.”

            Richard changes up & claim he didn’t incorrectly write Stephens 2012 evidence is based on climate models not observed data:

            “Ball4, think about your quote from Stephens et al…What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence….The only “evidence” they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out..”

            Then Richard issues an incomplete & somewhat incoherent challenge:

            “I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else [i.e. you Ball4]) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.”

            Pointing out a “net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea” in Stephens Fig. 1 would require Richard stating what this DLR is supposedly net of.

            “The bulk ocean makes up 93% of the observed increased “storage” (IPCC)…”

            When prompted, Richard now adds what he should have written in the first place about the ~0.6 Earth system EB 2012 imbalance.

            ——

            2:23pm: Richard states, without providing evidence: “Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection.”

            No. Actually Dr. Spencer (and others) provide evidence added DWIR absorbed from icy cirrus cloud can warm surface water in the presence of natural evaporation and natural convection to a depth of several inches (go to site search box enter: experiment).

            Then Richard 2:23, 2;58, 3:10, 3:39am selects some studies based on climate models to complain they are based on climate models not physical evidence. All Richard needs to do is select studies based on observational physical evidence to remedy his complaints.

          • bdgwx says:

            Richard said: Except the IPCC claim the SSR-forced ocean heat for TOA GHG forcing. That is absurd.

            Solar input changes have been small. Since 1750 the RF is about +0.05 W/m^2; far too low to account for the heat accumulation. And from 1986 the RF was negative.

            Richard said: They have absolutely NO physical evidence for that and their own surface energy budget (Stephens et al Fig 1 upthead and see below) precludes it anyway.

            There is quite literally physical evidence for GHG induced heat accumulation. There is a mountain of physical evidence.

            Richard said: Although there is massive uncertainty at the surface: 0.6 W.m2 +/-17.

            There is uncertainty. It’s not +- 17 W/m^2 though. First, Stephens lists two imbalances: TOA of 0.6 +- 0.4 W/m^2 and surface of 0.6 +-17 W/m^2. For TOA the uncertainty is constrained by CERES at +- 4.0 and when you add OHC it drops to +- 0.6. For the surface Stephens is using the summation in quadrature rule from all of the component fluxes. It’s high because the uncertainty on the component fluxes is high. In fact, it is an order of magnitude higher than direct observations constrained by OHC alone. This is the challenge Stephen discusses. It would be nice if the uncertainty on the individual components were as a low as the direct observation of the EEI as well. That’s one of the main points of the publication.

            Richard said: So the surface estimate range is 17.6 to -16.4. I’m not quibbling though.

            The estimate given in the paper is +0.6 +- 0.4 W/m^2 using OHC constraints. It’s +0.6 +- 17 for non-constrained summation in quadrature of the components that go into it.

            Richard said: This is where it gets problematic for the IPCC because their anthro TOA forcings overshoot actual EI and the margin is widening rapidly.

            ERF is not the same thing as EEI. ERF is always higher than EEI. That is expected. And I’m not seeing a huge discrepancy between between expectations of either here.

            Richard said: [Me] – “I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.”

            Let me make sure I’m understanding the challenge. The LW-up is 398 and LW-down is 346. The difference is 52 W/m^2. Are you asking of that 52 W/m^2 how much is attributable to anthroprogenic influence? Or said another way what was the value prior to anthroprogenic influence? If so then I don’t know the answer to that question.

          • bdgwx says:

            Richard said: Total net anthro 1.6 W.m2, and as Svante points out the CO2 component has increased somewhat since then. At that time TOA theory was 1 W.m2 greater than the TOA actual of 0.6 W.m2

            Again…I think you’re conflating Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) with Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF).

            In as simple a way as possible the relationship is…

            EEI = ERF – ΔT/y

            …where y is the sensitivity parameter in C per W/m^2.

            It’s not quite that simple, but is illustrative of the relationship.

            For example if the ERF is 2.3 W/m^2 and Earth had warmed by about 1.0C over that period and assuming a sensitivity of 0.6C per W/m^2 then…

            EEI = 2.3 W/m^2 – (1.0 C / 0.6 C/W.m^2) = +0.65 W/m^2.

            And with an EEI = +0.65 W/m^2 that means 0.65 W/m^2 * 0.6 C/W.m^2 = 0.4C of warming is still in the pipeline. The transient climate response (TCR) is 1.0C and the equilibrium climate response (ECR) is 1.4C. These are just rough numbers. We can plug in whatever values are mutually agreeable.

          • bdgwx says:

            Richard said: IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

            I’m not seeing any discrepancy here. The blue line in this graph is the amount of energy accumulated in the geosphere. It is about 300 ZJ from 1970 to 2011.

            The black line is the total energy inflow. It is balanced by the increase in OLR and the geosphere uptake of 300 ZJ.

            BTW…we’ve discussed this on this blog before. OLR is increasing which is somewhat counter intuitive. The intuition is that as GHGs close off the IR atmospheric window you would expect a decrease in OLR. But what’s actually going on here is that changes in GHGs only close off a narrow band of the OLR. This induces an EEI. The EEI is equilibriated by an increase in temperature which increase broadband OLR. The ASR (absorbed solar radiation) increases as well through a cloud thinning effect. This is an expected observation predicted by most climate models. This why figure TFE.4 appears the way it does. That 500 ZJ difference between the black line and blue line is already accounted for. In other words, the geosphere accumulated 300 ZJ of energy; not 800 ZJ. And all observations are consistent (given reasonable uncertainty) with expectations.

          • Ball4 says:

            “This is an expected observation predicted by most climate models.”

            That ought to set off Richard, lol. A better observational source is Loeb et. al. 2018. They observe OLR varies with ENSO and SW reflected varies with sea ice coverage Fig. 9, discussion, and conclusions. Overall trends listed numerically Table 7. OLR trend is barely positive and naturally could reasonably be zero within the CIs of the CERES satellite era so far.

          • bdgwx says:

            Ball4, thanks. I hadn’t read through that Loeb 2018 publication yet. I’ll have to take a deep dive into it, but table 7 at a cursory glance looks consistent with IPCC figure TFE.4. Loeb has Ed4.0 value of 0.57 W/m^2 per decade change in inflow. I’ll have to double check the numbers but if you assume 0.57 is representative of 1970-2011 and you integrate it over 40 years I think you get around 800 ZJ matching the black line in the TFE.4 figure reasonably well.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Loeb has Ed4.0 value of 0.57 W/m^2 per decade change in inflow.”

            I remember that being puzzling on my first read also, which you will come to understand as reflected SW once you detail read the paper. All CERES radiometers view scenes looking down so SW -57 (2000 to 2016) is reduction in outgoing SW, a warming trend on ASR, see SORCE data looking up for SW inflow.

          • Svante says:

            Richard C (NZ) says:

            Could you provide some reference information on this please Svante?

            It was in the first comment on this page:
            https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?

            By the way, I think Ocean warming is by SW radiation, other flows are from the Oceans to the atmosphere, i.e. the atmosphere is warmed by the Oceans.

          • bdgwx says:

            That makes sense Ball4. That’s what I was thinking. It is an implied increase in ASR. That’s what the IPCC TFE.4 graph is trying to communicate I believe. The IPCC calls the graph the total “radiative response” in the breakout box. I think Richard is interpreting TFE.4 wrong. Though I do entertain the possibility that it is me not interpreting his point correctly.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Svante (Part 1)

            >”It was in the first comment on this page:”

            Ok thanks, Rentsch (2019) from hereon.

            That finding comports with Berkeley Labs in-situ Oklahoma and Alaska studies:

            First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
            https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

            They found about 0.2 W.m2/decade 2000 – 2010. This too is about 70% of what can be estimated using the IPCC’s simplified forcing expression ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0) for that period.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Svante (Part 2)

            Wang & Liang (2009) determined the CO2 component of total DLR:

            [29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on L d is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere, current atmospheric CO2 contributes about 6 W m−2 to L d , and if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at the current rate of ∼1.9 ppm yr−1 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007], this will contribute to an increase of L d by ∼0.3 W m−2 per decade. Therefore, the total variation rate in L d is 2.2 W m−2 per decade.
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD011800

            CO2 only 70% of that in observations. Of far greater import is “the total variation rate in L d is 2.2 W m−2 per decade”. That is an order of magnitude greater than CO2 alone.

            >”By the way, I think Ocean warming is by SW radiation, other flows are from the Oceans to the atmosphere, i.e. the atmosphere is warmed by the Oceans”

            Agreed, but the IPCC narrative is that a minuscule 0.3 W.m2/decade of downwelling IR-C (a.k.a. DLR) does the heavy lifting.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4 (Part 2)

            >”All Richard needs to do is select studies based on observational physical evidence to remedy his complaints.”

            The 10 micron effective penetration of the ocean surface by DLR (Fairall et al 1996) obviously demonstrates it can NEVER be the bulk ocean heating agent that solar SW is given the effective 1m SW penetration and 3 orders of magnitude higher energy-per-photon (meV vs eV).

            I challenge you Ball4 to produce ONE AO microphysics study citation from Chapter 10 that supports their CO2 – OH attribution.

            Here’s Chapter 10, put up or shut up:

            AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Mods, just had 2 comments go into spam trap. One only had one link and was quite short so I don’t why it it was filtered out.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx >”AgainI think youre conflating Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) with Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF).”

            Rubbish, EEI is an observation, RF is a theory construct to, the IPCC hopes, explain EEI. EEI is simply observed energy in at TOA vs observed energy out.

            See IPCC FAQ ‘What is radiative forcing’. The IPCC’s Table of Forcings is just a snapshot in time (not model input – see below) for Assessment Reports showing the theoretical forcing that, supposedly, is nudging the TOA energy budget off balance. But total theoretical TOA forcing is now far greater than the actual observed TOA imbalance, and increasing.

            Model forcing initialization (parameterization) data for CMIP intercomparison is the Representative Concentration Pathways (RPGs). The RPG database is here (Compare page):

            RCP Database (version 2.0)
            http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=compare

            See Variables > Radiative Forcing > Total, CO2 etc.

            See Query Results for year 2020 (Total) e.g. RCP 6.0 2.480 W.m2, RCP 8.5 2.665 W.m2. These are wildly greater numbers than the last actual 0.6 W.m2 TOA EI observation i.e. theory vs actual does NOT comport. There will have to be an EI update for AR6 obviously. I haven’t seen that yet.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx

            >EEI = 2.3 W/m^2 (1.0 C / 0.6 C/W.m^2) = +0.65 W/m^2.

            Firstly I appreciate that ERF as used here is for future indicative purposes by the IPCC. But is is still only an unproven theoretical construct as is RF.

            The problem with this is that the EEI was a relatively constant +0.65 W.m2 for some time. Stephens et al’s period was 2000 2010. So the implication is that your ERF remained a constant 2.3 W.m2 from 2000 – 2010 because there was little or no temperature change over that decade.

            I’ve just posted the IPCC’s RCPs. At 2000 theoretical Total Radiative Forcing for CMIP purposes was 1.723 W.m2 for all 4 scenarios but by 2010 varied between 2.089 and 2.154. At 2020 between 2.480 and 2.665. Obviously ERF cannot stay constant under that regime.

            So the IPCC’s theoretical and progressively increasing TOA radiative forcings for each scenario are at odds with an already relatively constant TOA EI that exhibits no signs of increasing post 2010 on a gradient commensurate with any RCP.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx

            >”Im not seeing any discrepancy here. The blue line in this graph is the amount of energy accumulated in the geosphere. It is about 300 ZJ from 1970 to 2011.”

            You wont see a discrepancy because the graph is a reconciliation between theory on the left and observations on the right. But it is a bogus reconciliation.

            The problem is the IPCC’s attribution of the ocean component of ‘Storage’ (93%) to TOA GHG forcing by speculative “air-sea fluxes” (an air to sea energy transfer) that they do not identify in their surface energy budget. Their attribution is for what they cannot account for with their TOA solar forcing on the left. This is absurd because solar heating of the ocean (predominantly in the tropics) is by SSR.

            The following blog post demonstrates the effect of SSR:

            ‘Large Increase In Number Of Sunshine Hours Likely Behind Warming, Glacier Retreat In Alps Since 1980’ [Look it up, I wont link it]

            They present this graph:

            Number of sunshine hours (orange) compared to the mean temperature in degrees Celsius (red). Each curve is 10-year smoothed. Source: Cropped from video Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo, by Gnther Aigner
            https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Zugspitze-Ostalpen-sun-temp.png

            Put differently, the IPCC missattributes to TOA GHG forcing what should rightly be attributed to SSR. Which makes their reconcilation graph incorrect and they are left with excess theoretical energy on the left that they can’t sink.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4, I’m having trouble posting anything at the moment especially if there’s a link but maybe this will get through.

            Rooftop solar water heating systems demonstrate that DLR is not a water heating agent – solar SSR is the agent.

            The systems do not heat at night but DLR does not shut down at night as does SSR. DLR is a round-the-clock flux. If DLR does not heat the water in a rooftop water system then it is certainly not going to heat the ocean.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4

            >”Let me make sure Im understanding the challenge. The LW-up is 398 and LW-down is 346. The difference is 52 W/m^2. Are you asking of that 52 W/m^2 how much is attributable to anthroprogenic influence?

            No. The net 52 W.m2 flux is OLR (LWup is greater than LWdown) i.e. a surface cooling flux leaving the surface; a sea to air plus space flux. A transfer of radiative energy from the sea to the air plus space.

            The IPCC posits LW “air to sea fluxes”, the exact opposite. They posit a transfer of LW radiative energy from the air to the sea.

            Unless I’m missing something, the only radiative transfer of energy from the air to the sea in the surface energy budget, and hence the surface heating agent, is surface solar radiation SSR.

            Am I missing something or are you now understanding the futility of the challenge?

          • Ball4 says:

            Richard 5:46am, the “make sure” you clip is from bdgwx. The 52 is calculated net OLR from surface as you note LWup net of LWdown, downdrafts, and precipitation.

            “Unless I’m missing something, the only radiative transfer of energy from the air to the sea in the surface energy budget, and hence the surface heating agent, is surface solar radiation SSR.”

            You are missing the LWdown Stephens down arrow for energy absorbed at the surface that you just mentioned. Added into the SW down arrow is a component including atm. LWdown, component of energy transfer from downdraft convection due mass continuity, and energy transfer of precipitation enthalpy to get the total shown in Stephens 2012 “all-sky emission to surface”.

            The latter two components are broken out more clearly in L’Ecuyer et. al. 2015 EB which adds in downdrafts & hydrology with the water cycle to further clarify Stephens LWdown sum of each component.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            bdgwx (Part 1)

            >”There is quite literally physical evidence for GHG induced heat accumulation. There is a mountain of physical evidence.”

            There is a mountain of physical evidence of heat accumulation. There is a mountain of GHG-forced model-based studies purporting to be physical evidence that the accumulation is GHG induced but they is NOT actual physical evidence. There is not one microphysics study of the AO interface that I can find in AR5 Chapter 10.4. As for Ball4 I challenge you to produce just ONE.

          • Ball4 says:

            1:35am: “I challenge you Ball4 to produce ONE AO microphysics study citation from Chapter 10 that supports their CO2 – OH attribution.”

            I didn’t refer you to Chapter 10 for that, I referred you to Dr. Spencer’s experiments showing added LW from icy atm. cirrus cloud incident on exposed surface water several inches deep measured at a higher thermometer temperature than surface water not in view of that added LW.

            Other researchers (e.g. Dr. Peter Minnett, Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography) have carried out experiments showing the same results out in the ocean to more depth. Reasonably, rooftop water heaters will show the same effect if proper experiments carried out but with way more unneeded difficulty.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4

            My comments are disappearing but here goes.

            >”I didnt refer you to Chapter 10 for that, I referred you to Dr. Spencers experiments…”

            I referred you to Chapter 10. I’m challenging you for just ONE microphysics paper from 10.4 i.e. actual physical evidence from the IPCC. Not modeling papers.

            >”Other researchers (e.g. Dr. Peter Minnett,…”

            Minnett’s theory is a minuscule insulation effect, not the air to sea energy transfer as per IPCC. His is not the IPCC’s case for OH attribution.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4

            >”Reasonably, rooftop water heaters will show the same effect if proper experiments carried out but with way more unneeded difficulty.”

            No-one attempts harnessing 24 hour DLR for water heating because it has no heating effect. No commercial application, experiment redundant.

            Same with PV for electricity generation. The only production is from solar during the day, nothing from solar or DLR at night. Nothing from DLR in the day. Production follows the solar curve. A DLR flux in the early morning, late afternoon or night produces no electricity whatsoever.

            DLR does no useful work, either water heating or photovoltaics.

          • Richard C (NZ) says:

            Ball4

            >”You are missing the LWdown Stephens down arrow for energy absorbed at the surface that you just mentioned.”

            I’m acutely aware of both LWdown and LWup. But once net OLR of 53 W.m2 is calculated then that is the effective LW flux at the surface and it is LWup (OLR) – surface cooling, not warming. In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.

            As for other fluxes you mentioned, the IPCC posits an LW-only raditive flux (as does Stephens et al “TOA LW flux”) for OH attribution. There is no other consideration.

          • bdgwx says:

            Richard, this thread is getting pretty long. I responded at the bottom.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I referred you to Chapter 10. I’m challenging you for just ONE microphysics paper from 10.4 i.e. actual physical evidence from the IPCC…No-one attempts harnessing 24 hour DLR for water heating because it has no heating effect.”

            The IPCC is a reporting agency summarizing the science, go directly to the author’s (eg. Minnett’s) published work to find missing details you seek. I see you haven’t yet come up to speed on the answer to your challenge where Dr. Spencer experimentally harnesses added overnight atm. DLR to increase the thermometer temperature of surface water.

            I’ll write that again, Richard needs to learn this: Dr.s Spencer and Minnett have experimentally shown additional absorbed LWdown will increase more than 6″ deep thermometer temperature of surface water free to evaporate.

          • Nate says:

            “Im acutely aware of both LWdown and LWup. But once net OLR of 53 W.m2 is calculated then that is the effective LW flux at the surface and it is LWup (OLR) surface cooling, not warming. In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.”

            Richard, I dont understand this argument. If LWdown increases, then the NET radiative cooling flux is REDUCED.

            If solar heating is presumed steady, and one of the cooling mechanisms, radiation, is REDUCED, then what will be the result?

            Do you not understand that warming must be the result?

          • Ball4 says:

            Nate, the usual presumption is that for surface water free to evaporate the added absorbed sky LWdown (Richard term) isn’t enough to overcome the thermodynamic internal energy evaporative loss. Detail calculations supported by experiment show the presumption is not correct.

          • Nate says:

            “the usual presumption is that for surface water free to evaporate the added absorbed sky LWdown (Richard term) isn’t enough to overcome the thermodynamic internal energy evaporative loss.”

            What Im saying is that extra DW LWIR results in reduced cooling and therefore additional warming.

            And how that divides up between latent and sensible heat is a separate weather-dependent issue that misses the point.

          • Ball4 says:

            “What I’m saying is that extra DW LWIR results in reduced cooling and therefore additional warming.”

            Not necessarily for liquid surface water naturally free to evaporate, you have to do the work or experiment to show when that is true & those calculations & experiments have been done.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bdg…”Ive been waiting for that long term cooling that weve been told has been just around the corner”

          One has to be patient at times as a skeptic. What goes around, comes around.

          In a way, I’m glad our atmosphere, oceans and land mass interaction is so unpredictable. They did not even know there was a PDO till the 1990s.

      • Richard C (NZ) says:

        >”SH forecast just bounced off the bottom of the chart (-0.4). If the observation progression keeps up it’ll be “off the chart” in a few weeks. Awkward.”

        Right on cue Karsten Haustein has just changed the scale of his graph, adding 0.2 C to accommodate the below normal SH temperature plunge:

        GFS 2m-T
        http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

        Sigh, can’t use “off the chart” in comments if he keeps doing that.

    • Eben says:

      Salvatore’s mistake was predicting cooling just months ahead , climate doesn’t work work that way , when it comes to climate “around the corner” is more like 12 years. It took 40 years to warm up half a degree, it is not gonna cool back down in three month.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        eben…the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was not discovered till 1977 and it took them till the 1990s to identify it. There’s a heck of a lot not known about how the PDO works, never mind ENSO, the AMO, etc.

        Tsonis et all studied the relation between warming and cooling and the different oscillations. They found it warmed when the oscillations were in phase and cooled when they were out of phase. Tsonis himself claimed we should stop focusing on anthropogenic forces and study the oscillations.

      • Chic Bowrie says:

        That’s well said.

        And if it ever does cool down, it may not warm up for another 1000 years.

      • Nate says:

        Yep, and Jesus will soon return and take y’all somewhere nice..

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        blob, please stop trolling.

  6. Aaron S says:

    “Yeah, I miss him too. He was a good guy, and I enjoyed him being around on this blog. But he was trying to predict the climate direction in ways that just arent possible, as there are just too many variables we dont know about and cant predict.”

    Yea agreed. I hope he is doing well.

    During the solar max I was on his side that the warming would slow when the sun transitioned to a major minimum… somewhat similar to his views except I felt CO2 was an obvious factor as well. This solar concept was based on a stronger sun model including magnetics with evidence from abundant literature showing solar periodicity in the lacustrine, isotope, and tree ring literature. I also had to humble myself based on recent trends of warming.

    Now I think within the natural system without AGW, solar cycles drive more climate variability than today when the CO2 and perhaps aresol from industrial revolution overwhelms the system.

    I will add that 20 year lags between the climate forcing and earths response remain plausible, but the actual increases in all global temperature data is hard to explain in a stronger sun model. The only plausible option I see at this point with consideration of the recent warming is that the aerosol (sulfate) system is dominant cooling factor and masked the previous warming from the sun, and recent warming relates to the decrease of sulfates decline. This model would imply that the solar max would have driven even more warming without aerosols making warming. Perhaps, the solar max would have created climate something like 120,000 years ago when seal level was naturally 6 to 9m higher than today without any CO2. Then of course GHG would be a player through all of this.

    So I agree with you that it is very very complex.

    • RW says:

      I’m very skeptical that GHGs are playing any significant role in this ‘climate change’ we’ve seen in the last few decades. This is mainly because the amount of change is so small and well within the range of the system’s internal fluctuations, i.e. its fluctuations that occur with no external forcings.

      This is non issue, and man’s net influence might not even be warming. I think historians will be baffled when looking back at this time at how mankind could have gone so completely bonkers or such spectacularly small changes in temperature. The science allegedly in support of a large or amplified effect from GHGs is majorly flawed and almost certainly wrong.

      People are arguing with each other over tenths of a degree of change in temperature. It’s insanity, and it needs to end. Hopefully soon.

      • RW says:

        This was supposed to say:

        “I think historians will be baffled when looking back at this time at how mankind could have gone so completely bonkers over such spectacularly small changes in temperature.”

  7. Gregory J says:

    I favor a global thermal inertia of 200 years. Have a look at this link:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJnEnemr7-WgYM18lWj5QhathHX1qXzW/view?usp=drivesdk

    You can see that if the solar activity is convolved with a decaying exponential of 200 years, it correlates well with the global temperature reconstruction.

    • Bindidon says:

      When releasing your upload, you should specify it such that everybody shall have access to it.

      J.-P. D.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”When releasing your upload, you should specify it such that everybody shall have access to it”.

        Open an email account at gmail and sign in.

  8. Gregory J says:

    Global Temperature vs. Solar Activity

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks8lx6431ptxgh0/Photo%20Jul%2012%2C%2012%2028%2035%20PM.jpg?dl=0

    Same picture as above but different link.

  9. ren says:

    There is no “global climate”. Climate changes result from changes in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field and the Sun’s magnetic activity. These changes cause long-term changes in the course of jetstreams in tropopause.
    https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/16/5967/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

  10. Trebor says:

    No, I just dont understand the difference?
    Its an honest question.

  11. MrZ says:

    For those who are interested I have added short wave radiation to my app here: https://cfys.nu/GTA.
    The data is provided by ECMWF ERA5 a re-analyse set.
    There is info in the app describing the parameters. You can look at multiple level from TOA and down.
    Have special look at SSR over land…

    • Bindidon says:

      MrZ

      Many thanks for the interesting info. I have their data too, but didn’t process it yet. I’m currently a bit sad of downloading & processing temp data all the time.

      *
      But recently I made a consistency test whose result was not quite satisfying. Maybe you did the sam test, so we could compare.

      I constructed one more time, out of UAH’s anomalies and their climatology, a monthly time series with absolute data.

      Out this data, I reconstructed anomalies wrt 1981-2010, and compared that result with Roy Spencer’s original data:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/18hW2fWKAam0AD-wWU_3AD48TyOJOYki6/view

      While the differences between the two series keep minimal till 2010 (between -0.02 and +0.01), they begin to slightly bump later, first downwards, and then upwards.

      Any idea?

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

      • MrZ says:

        Hi Bindidon!
        Try running your anomaly process against a 0C basetemp and compare with Roys anomalies.
        When I do that my result are the same as his to the third decimal. I have checked randomly though. If your problem persist I can plot it to compare.

        Let me know when/if you have some thoughts on SSR over land.

        • Bindidon says:

          MrZ

          Thanks but that doesn’t seem to be very helpful because the difference of 273.15 is everywhere the same in the time series.

        • Bindidon says:

          MrZ

          In the file

          http://cfys.nu/Share/UAHAnomComp.xlsx

          you compare anomalies with anomalies.

          Where is your absolute data?

          J.-P. D.

          • MrZ says:

            I use exactly the same process as you.
            The base temp is read from tltmonagc_6.0. It is not easy for me to create a list of absolute temps but you can see the weighted results in the app with the Raw Data setting under Graph Controls.
            From Jan 1979 it goes
            -10.44
            -10.31
            -10.10
            -9.71
            and so on.

            I checked briefly against your series and from what I could see we are identical on the absolute data

            So you are obviously doing the weighting right on the absolute. Why anomaly drifts I don’t know. Maybe you can point out where we deviate on anomalies by adding your data in the Excel?

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            Thanks for the useful communication.

            It’s hard to believe, but yesterday’s error must have been within Libre Office Calc’s internal data.

            The differences suddenly dropped from [-0.04:+0.07] down to [-0.011:+0.0012]

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bmWPOAdL817vuu-IFjkwXSVzIKTQd9xQ/view

            and the error is now no longer visible even when looking at the ‘.ods’ file saved last night on an external HD!

            That’s manifestly the price one has to pay when using LINUX for free…

            In the sum, my generation of absolute data out of UAH’s grid has now successfully passed the last V&V step :-{)

            J.-P. D.

          • MrZ says:

            Gr8!
            I always assumed Roy was right 😄

          • Bindidon says:

            MrZ

            Of course he was!

            But that was (absolutely) not the topic.

            J.-P. D.

  12. ClintR says:

    I sure hope ENSO gets the memo about manmade global warming, and “radiative forcing”. The ENSO waters seem to have a mind of their own….

    https://postimg.cc/VSqyXBJB

  13. ren says:

    People in the Patagonia region of South America experience one of the region’s worst winters in 20 years. Intensive rainfall, snowstorms and temperatures well below zero affected, among others on the agricultural sector, which forced the authorities to declare a state of emergency.
    https://twitter.com/SociedadRural/status/1287139285200707585

  14. Tim S says:

    I am a chemical process engineer, and I spend a lot of time analyzing data trends. I realize that ENSO has a significant effect, but I see steps in the data. From 1979 to about 1995 there is a cycle pattern and then a step up. From about 1995 to about 2008 there seems to be a higher step, and from about 2008 to the present there seems to another higher step up.

    I fully realize there are many different factors including random chaotic effects beyond ENSO, but from a pure data analysis point of view that is what I see. If I was looking at process data, I would conclude that the process is making steps.

    • Tim S says:

      I probably should have stated that the second step ended, and the third step started in 2012 instead of 2008.

    • Bindidon says:

      Tim S

      Steps? What steps did you see where in the ENSO record?

      https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png

      J.-P. D.

    • bdgwx says:

      Yep. If you have a cyclic process approximated by say y=sin(x) you’ll see the highs and lows with no net long term change in y. But if you add a linear term such that y=x+sin(x) you still have the cycle but with a positive slope. y=x+sin(x) can be described as a pause-up-pause-up pattern. sin(x) is like the natural cycles whereas x is like the persistent radiative forcing of long lived GHGs.

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx, you shouldn’t use the same variable twice, since the sine wave is time dependent. You should have used “y=a+sin(x)”.

        Of course when “a’ is negative, we get ice ages.

        • bobdroege says:

          Of course you can use the same variable twice, in fact it is so common in mathematics.

          y=ax^2 + bx + c comes to mind, but ClintR wouldn’t know that because he just demonstrated that he never even took high school physics.

          Still trying to get into idiot school, but since he can’t pass moron school, it’s going to be tough going.

          • ClintR says:

            “y = xx^2 + xx + x”?

            bob got in the insults, and demonstrated his ignorance. But, he forgot his immature profanities.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR still doesn’t understand that the equation y = x + sinx is a valid equation.

            That’s understandable, as it’s a post idiot school topic and ClintR hasn’t met the entry requirements, let alone graduate.

            I, of course, can provide the profanity if that’s what you’re in to.

          • ClintR says:

            Yes, if you’re going to be an incompetent juvenile, at least be proud of it.

            (Trolls like you will go back and forth all day, so you can have the last word. I’ve got better things to do.)

          • bobdroege says:

            It would be cool if you learned some math or science but as you say, you have better things to do.

            Well said young troll.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bobd…”Of course you can use the same variable twice…”

            Yes…but not when you are referencing two separate functions. In the example of bdx, he stated y = x + sinx. As he explained, x represents a straight line function and sinx is a periodic function.

            y = x + sinx is the same as y = F(x) + G(x) where F(x) is a function of x representing a straight line function and G(x) is a separate function representing a periodic (sine) function. Believe me, I have extensive experience with this on engineering math exams where I foolishly drew a graph as required and used a cosine function rather than a sine function, screwing the problem entirely. After working with sine waves for year I should have been kicked out of school for that dumb error.

            The Newton-Rhapson method for approximating the roots of an equation use that method. If you have an equation like y = 2x + sinx, you can find the roots of the equation by finding where the straight line intercepts the periodic sine function.

            In the example of bdx, although both functions use the same values of x coordinate range, the relationship between y = f(x) and y = g(x) relate x to y in very different manners. So you have to be careful not to confuse the values of x between the functions.

            The quadratic equation you presented, y = ax^2 +bx + c actually describes a function of x where y = ax^2, which is a parabola. Since the exponents of x progress as x^0 = 1, plus x^1 + x^2…+ x^n, they describe a series (Taylor) wherein each term is an approximation to a curve. The more terms you have in the series the more accurate the approximation.

            So, your example is a specific function of x and not a summation of dissimilar functions of x. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

          • bdgwx says:

            The point is that the addition of a positive linear term creates the pause-up-pause-up pattern when combined with a cyclic term. Plotting y = x*sin(x) is easy way to visualize this. I have no problem with substitutions such that y = a(x) + n(x) where a(x)=x and n(x)=sin(x) as long as everyone understands that a(x) is most like the persistent anthroprogenic force and n(x) is most like the cyclic natural force. Again…the point is that a pause-up-pause-up or step pattern effect is a completely intuitive concept that only requires math skills at a high school level.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            Get you a math textbook to study, high school algebra, because if you can’t find the root of y = 2x + sin x you are in deep trouble.

            “The Newton-Rhapson method for approximating the roots of an equation use that method. If you have an equation like y = 2x + sinx, you can find the roots of the equation by finding where the straight line intercepts the periodic sine function.”

            Finding the root of y = 2x + cos x is a little trickier.

            You could us Newton’s method of successive approximations for that I suppose.

          • ClintR says:

            Both equations, y = 2x + sinx, and y = 2x + cosx, are sums of “continuous functions”. Therefore both equations are also continuous functions.

            As such, they have a contiuous graph, with each value of y corresponding to a value of x.

            There is no single “solution” or “root” for a continuous function. Any value of x will produce a value of y.

          • bobdroege says:

            The root is where the value equals zero.

            a value of x which corresponds to y = 0

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            If this is your story and you are sticking to it

            So, your example is a specific function of x and not a summation of dissimilar functions of x. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it

            The three function I was summing in the equation y = ax^2 + bx + c are dissimilar functions, one is a quadratic y = ax^2, one is linear y = bx, and one is a constant function y = c.

            So if you can’t get this simple algebra right, how can I trust that you get the more advanced science right.

            Try graphing the equation T = 0.02 x + sin (x * 3.14159/30)

            That was the whole point, what does that function look like?

          • bobdroege says:

            Hey ClintR,

            Have you bothered to look up what the root of an equation means.

            Will you admit you are ignorant about math?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob, please stop trolling.

          • bobdroege says:

            Drempty,

            Please stop ******* yourself

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            blob, please stop trolling.

        • bdgwx says:

          ClintR said: Of course when “a’ is negative, we get ice ages.

          That’s right. Negative forcing eras do not halt cyclic heat transfer processes. As the Earth descends into a glacial era the ocean and atmosphere still exchange heat causing the atmospheric temperature to ebb and flow as it continues to decline over long periods of time. The same is true for positive forcing eras as well.

  15. Aaron S says:

    Gregory J,

    Your correlation looks great except the solar activity recently changed to a major minimum, and I dont see that in the correlation plots between temperature and the sun. Can you explain what the convolution method you used to eliminate the modern solar minimum?

    A

  16. Gaj says:

    Global warming continues since 1979 but the reality is we still don’t know the cause/s with the certainty we know the causes of gravitational laws. Everything we know, including IPCC reports, are approximations or estimations at best.

  17. Gregory J says:

    Aaron S,

    The idea behind the plot is that the land and oceans absorb the solar energy but then release it only very slowly to the atmosphere. Each year of solar activity is effectively spread out over hundreds of years. The solar forcing for any given year then depends not only on the solar activity of that year, but also on the solar activity of preceding years.

    However, the solar activity data set that I used only went thru 2017, so yes, you are right, the current minimum is missing from this analysis.

  18. Aaron S says:

    Gregory J,
    You and have similar thoughts. I have some literature showing this sort of lag in the Asian monsoon recorded in speleothems. A lag exists between solar isotopes with climate dependent isotopes. However, where I struggle is the mechanism for the ongoing warming after the solar collapse. I would anticipate no warming or cooling. The ocean currents responsible for the stored heat could maintain the temperature but I dont see how they could cause the increase.

    That said the aerosol content in the atmosphere creating albedo is another variable that could justify. I would need to dig for that paper but I will if you let me know you want it.

  19. Gregory J says:

    Aaron S,

    As you point out, one of the interesting aspects of this analysis is that even as the solar Activity has declined over the past few decades, the solar forcing has continued to increase. This is just a consequence of the mathematical convolution.

    In the convolution, the total strength of each solar activity point is spread over hundreds of years as a decaying exponential. This follows from the assumption that energy is absorbed by the oceans and then slowly released to the atmosphere over hundreds of years. For any given year, the atmosphere sees a contribution from the oceanic heat release of that year PLUS the tails of oceanic heat releases from previous years. These tails add up in such a way that even once the solar activity begins to decline, the net heat transfer to the atmosphere continues to increase for a certain period of time (a time that is short compared to the decay constant of a few hundred years). Eventually, of course, the heat transfer does start to decrease.

    So, to summarize, it is just the mathematics of the convolution that has caused the solar forcing to continue to rise in this particular graph. There has been no inclusion of other phenomena, like albedo changes, etc.

  20. A. SMITH says:

    Berkley’s climate website is trash propoganda. Any university that has been on a gravy train of government funding for umpteen years to prove global warming is, without a doubt, eliminating common sense to promote their conflict of interest conclusions (which they will vehemently deny).

    the entire purpose of the “climate change” movement is NOT to “save the world”. The explicit purpose is to enable governments to continue eliminating liberty and freedom.

    Get ready for real change. GET READY.

    • Bindidon says:

      A. SMITH

      ” Berkleys climate website is trash propoganda. ”

      Any scientific proof?

      ” The explicit purpose is to enable governments to continue eliminating liberty and freedom. ”

      Oh! Another conspiracy theorist!

      Yeah. And the corona virus is a myth. Doctors and nurses who died due to it in Spain and Italy: that’s an invention, of course.

      J.-P. D.

  21. gbaikie says:

    How do greenhouse warming work?
    Well first you need insane people.
    Check! No shortage of them.
    And anything which might cause greenhouse warming, is a greenhouse gas. So clouds are not gases, but clouds are greenhouse gases.

    Therefore, though no prophet has announced it yet, the Earth ocean is a greenhouse gas.
    How does ocean warm Earth?
    It’s surface is not warmed by sunlight.
    If you had surface which was warmed by sunlight, the surface warms up and it radiates more energy.
    Ocean surface radiate less energy.
    What could you do to make the ocean surface absorb sunlight and heat up and radiate more energy. One could make it non transparent to sunlight.
    Pour a bunch of ink in the water. So now that ocean has ink in it, does it now stop being a greenhouse gas? Not quite, because the ocean evaporates, and evaporation cools the surface so it still doesn’t radiate as much.
    What happen if enough water evaporate that a crust of black ink forms on the surface, which stops the ocean evaporation.

    That would stop the ocean from being a greenhouse gas.
    And so, Earth freezes, and we will all die.

    {Though it should be noted that we are already living in Ice Age and are freezing our butts off, despite not having a bunch of ink in the ocean- and,.. everyone will die. And it should also be noted that our Ocean is also a massive refrigerator- which stops working if you pour ink on it}

    • ClintR says:

      Brilliant, gbaikie!

      I can just imagine the “insane people” now making graphs of manmade ink production correlated to temperatures, finding more hockey sticks!

      I wonder if they have ever correlated temperatures to historically increasing hockey games….

  22. Aaron S says:

    Gregory J,

    Yes I see your point, but I have never been able to create a mechanism to increase temperature after the solar forcing declines dramatically. It is plausible with some feedback in the system. Something like ocean currents turned to be in phase with 90yr solar cycles, but I have never seen evidence for this.

    I grabbed a cool paper about the relationship between monsoon climate and solar forcing you will likely enjoy if you have not seen it.

    Cheers,
    Aaron

    Donnge cave asian monsoon
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159

    From the paper methodology in a figure caption.
    “For the best correlation of two datasets, the chronology for the DAS record has been shifted older by 40 years and the one for the DA record younger by 47 years.” In other words there is a lag to make the optimal correlation.

  23. BaluGate says:

    It could be better : http://arthrosis.site

  24. Gregory J says:

    Nice paper! Thanks for the link. I like the idea that cosmic ray flux, as modulated by the sun, is an important factor in earths climate.

    • bdgwx says:

      Or maybe not. See Dunne 2016.

      https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

      “A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”

      I also recommend…

      Muscheler 2005
      Lockwood 2007
      Sloan 2008
      Pierce 2009
      Overholt 2009
      Kulmala 2010
      Calogovic 2010
      Erlykin 2013

      …and I’m sure there are others that have neglected to include above.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bdgwx, please stop trolling.

  25. Scott R says:

    Not much change in the global temperature this month… I see the NH of the sun has come back to life. Typically, the 11 year la nina down beat comes after the uptick of solar activity. Many models are predicting this soon. This is also timed with the 3.6 year cycle (1/3rd solar cycle). I’m carefully monitoring the UAH ocean tropics. Looking forward to adding another data point when it is released.

    During the last -AMO phase from 1960-1974 roughly, the NH of the sun was especially active compared to the SH. We are inching closer and closer to the “edge” as we near the Jupiter / Saturn conjunction. This -AMO cycle occurs on a repeating 60 year cycle.

    In the mean time, the Greenland ice sheet didn’t have any days above thaw temperatures again this year. Anyone surprised? Seems to be rolling over a little early this year.

    On the link between decreased solar activity, and large volcanic eruptions, the last VEI7 eruption, Mount Tambora, occurred during the Dalton minimum. There was also a VEI6 in 1808. There were 3 VEI6 eruptions between 1883-1912 which corresponded to the centennial minimum. Pinatubo occurred during high solar activity, however, it followed a period of below average earthquake activity stretching from 1970-1990. Pressure may have been building for a while on that one. We saw what Pinatubo did. Imagine one an order of magnitude bigger than that. It’s possible with this GSM coming up. We also have a striking lack of earthquakes 8 mag+.

  26. Bindidon says:

    Here is an update of the comparison of UAH6.0 LT anomalies between the periods around the two most recent, bigger El Ninos:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/11H1Y959how-bVRQLkUW2mV5OyIBty5Ra/view

    The anomaly comparison is made here relatively to their respective start, in order to exclude level differences occurring in between.

    Interestingly, the predominance within monthly values of the El Nino 2015/16, which only exists in anomaly-based records, like e.g. in UAH itself

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2020_v6-550×317.jpg

    is less visible when looking at the original absolute data:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EeNGcBpI1lIlB7IByn08xgFMfX2nl5cH/view

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Here is an update of the comparison of UAH6.0 LT anomalies between the periods around the two most recent, bigger El Ninos:”

      Seems to be getting cooler.

  27. Bindidon says:

    I’m neither a warmista, let alone a coolista. I prefer to observe data.

    Scott R, who all the time writes here as he was the good fellow of the coal/oil/gas industry, tells us:

    ” In the mean time, the Greenland ice sheet didn’t have any days above thaw temperatures again this year. ”

    without presenting any REALLY VALUABLE data confirming his claim.

    I prefer to show the daily Arctic sea ice extent for the last years (absolute values):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rIi_Ml6yinPkUWPDFPz4VEy9BUX4fZL/view

    As we all can see: 2020 is (in August!) a tick below 2012, the lowest summer sea ice year, and is moreover 2 million km^2 below the 1981-2010 mean.

    *
    And then, one more time: this ridiculous Zarkhova GSM blah blah!

    Sorry: this is too much.

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”I prefer to observe data”.

      There is something missing here. No one observes data, the data is a result of observation. The problem with your analysis is that you accept any old data, whether it is questionably fudged or not.

      When I have tried to point out the fudged data you have pompously replied that it is good, simply based of the name of the organization who fudged it. No amount of fudging evidence sways you.

    • Eben says:

      You have been acting like a total alarmist nutjob ever since you got here and now you tell us you’re no warmista , some king of self delusion on top of it.

    • Scott R says:

      Bindidon,

      You know you could easily check the EGP station data yourself. I know that you know how. Here’s a snap shot for you:

      https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3459515780734287&set=pcb.3459523404066858

      So again… not one recorded temperature above 0 deg c this summer on the ice sheet. All the cameras, the majority of the weather stations and media continue to focus on the coast of Greenland where we should all be thrilled that the ice is still melting into the ocean. If that process ever stopped, we would go into an ice age.

      Did you know that there is still ice floating around in the Hudson bay? 1 1/2 months after the summer solstice. The NW passage is still blocked. The peak summer temperatures are not reached until July, and water temperature / ice peaks later still. Why don’t you wait a few more months before you get excited about hitting a new ice min. I saw Heller’s new vid showing the coldest 6 months to start the year in the US ever. Or perhaps you’d like to tell me about the ice departures from a cherry picked average in October again when the sun isn’t out.

      So how is a 1981-2010 mean fair? You are basically capturing the 1/2 that follows the peak of the -AMO cycle. It would be like using Dec 21st – June 21st to create the average yearly temperature for a weather station. It’s going to be biased cold.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        scott…”Did you know that there is still ice floating around in the Hudson bay? 1 1/2 months after the summer solstice. The NW passage is still blocked. The peak summer temperatures are not reached until July, and water temperature / ice peaks later still”.

        Easy on the scientific fact, Scott, it causes hysterical reactions in alarmists like Binny.

  28. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…”From about 1995 to about 2008 there seems to be a higher step, and from about 2008 to the present there seems to another higher step up”.

    There is a well-known step circa 1977 where warming increased by 0.2C for no apparent reason. It was known initially as the Great Pacific Climate Shift till it was re-discovered as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf

    I have argued that a similar shift of nearly 0.2C occurred circa 2001 – 2002. If you look at the UAH graph on this site you can see that before the 1998 El Nino extreme, only the peaks of the anomaly variations go above the baseline, which is the 1981 – 2010 global average.

    After the ’98 EN extreme, temps went briefly below the baseline then moved above for good between 2001 – 2002. The global average then became flat till about 2015. Before the new UAH algorithm was produced that step to the flat trend average was about 0.2C.

    That means we’ve had 0.4C of unexplained warming since 1977.

    The step you describe from 2008 to present is actually a two part event. 2008 represented an El Nino that drove temps briefly below the baseline, then the flat trend continued till about 2015. The super EN of early 2016 accounts for the rest, even though the trend since then has been largely negative. Of course, the alarmists like to tack that superficial warming onto the overall trend.

    To those alarmists bent on interpreting my words as claiming Roy is an alarmist for increasing the overall trend to 0.14C/decade, that is not so. Roy is doing his job of analyzing the data and presenting a number based on the data. It’s not his job to analyze any further to explain the numbers. I appreciate the fact that he does try to enlighten us with plausible explanation from time to time.

  29. Aaron S says:

    Bdwgx,

    You say:
    “Or maybe not. See Dunne 2016.

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

    A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”

    And yet solar forcing is well documented in the paleoclimate records and the paper by Dunn is a response to a CERN paper proving in pristine atmospheres that cosmic Ray’s indeed nuclear clouds by creating ions (same process creates the C14 record used for dating historical objects- this is why C dates must use solar activity to reconstruct the C14 curve and connect half life to calendar dates).

    A plausible integration is obviously that we are no longer in a pristine atmosphere and have created a dominant system of ions for cloud nucleation from human activity and no longer rely on cosmic Ray’s in the modern setting. What confuses me is there are many types of clouds and I struggle that the entire system is calibrated sufficiently to eliminate the role of magnetics in climate. Did Dunn consider high elevation clouds? Also, I wonder the role of aerosols from volcanoes and if this same cloud formation creates a positive feedback for the cooling during a major eruption.

    Cheers,
    Aaron.

  30. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”A lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature. ”
    Huh???
    You think its cold in a vacuum chamber?”

    Space is classified as a vacuum and its temperature is about -273C. The only reason a vacuum device does not cool at STP is there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum device. They all have walls on them that conduct heat, no matter how well insulated, therefore the vacuum is never allowed to reach -273C.

    Conversely, the only reason heat exists is the kinetic energy of atoms, both internally and externally, in motion, as their kinetic energy.

    Is it not meaningless to talk about the temperature of a vacuum, if the definition of temperature and heat is the kinetic energy of atoms? A vacuum is the absence of atoms, so it’s the limit as atoms are removed from a space. It’s the removal of atoms that reduces the temperature, so you need to remove all the atoms in the vicinity of Earth before there is no heating.

    If you start with the nothingness of a vacuum and start adding atoms, the temperature begins rising. The more atoms you introduce, the warmer it gets. Of course, adding solar energy helps.

    Even at that, the space surrounding the Sun is full of ejected protons and electrons, therefore that space is neither a true vacuum or absolute zero.

    • Ghalfrunt. says:

      What about the thermospher?
      Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,700 C (3,100 F)[2] or more.
      The highly attenuated gas in this layer can reach 2,500 C (4,530 F) during the day. Despite the high temperature, an observer or object will experience cold temperatures in the thermosphere, because the extremely low density of gas (practically a hard vacuum) is insufficient for the molecules to conduct heat. A normal thermometer will read significantly below 0 C (32 F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.

  31. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Dr. Wood did not claim that theres no Greenhouse Effect due to the radiactively active gases”.

    From your own quotation of Wood…”It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions…..trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar”.

    He went on to explain atmospheric warming as being due to the major gases, N2/O2, absorbing heat directly from the surface then rising. Due to the poor radiation ability of N2/O2 at terrestrial temperatures the major gases retain the heat.

    That makes far more sense than a greenhouse, or the atmosphere, being warmed by radiation due to a trace gas like CO2.

    He added…”Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions”.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      Binny is confused. He doesnt realise that proof is for mathematics, not science.

      As Einstein said * No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.*

      Binny demands proof. Binny cant even prove he is rational. All blah blah, and no trousers, as they say.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      You are behind the times. Wood’s experiment was retested and his could not be duplicated. The opposite effect took place.

      Maybe Wood’s design were not both identical and the margin of error in results could be attributed to this.

      https://berkeleysciencereview.com/2016/11/greenhouse-gases-versus-glass-greenhouses/

      Again REAL science (how it works). Wood’s did not do a good job at all on his test. He had a forgone conclusion which could easily have biased his findings.

      Real science, multiple measurements. Switching lids to see if the box configuration had anything to do with results. I would say in this case Wood’s was sloppy.

      http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/

      • ClintR says:

        Norman, you can bicker about a century old experiment, or you can face reality. “Real science” does not avoid, ignore, evade, or pervert reality. When you claim that something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis, you are avoiding, ignoring, evading, and perverting reality.

        That makes you an idiot.

        • Norman says:

          ClintR

          I do not believe I fit in your category. I do understand the Moon does rotate once on it axis for each orbital period. That would not be the same as claiming something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.

          The only thing that would make me an “idiot” is to imagine you might actually respond to any real physics. The evidence is very overwhelming you do not understand any REAL science (I guess you might be okay at the made up blog versions where no evidence is necessary to support any claims).

          You do not have enough knowledge of actual physics to understand the GHE and will always and forever get the concept wrong.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman says: “That would not be the same as claiming something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.”

            Okay Norman, see if you can face reality: A wooden horse is bolted to the outer edge of a merry-go-round. It cannot rotate about it center of gravity. With the merry-go-round rotating about its CoG, is the wooden horse also rotating about its CoG?

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            My opinion is that in such a case the horse is NOT rotating on its axis. The platform is rotating on its axis. The horse is part of the platform. I believe I was shot down previously with this understanding. Not sure what thread it was on. I think it was with an interaction with DREMT.

          • Bindidon says:

            Oh Noooo, Norman and others!

            Please don’t pollute this thread again.

            Please, please continue your stoopid pseudo discussion here:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/

            J.-P. D.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, you are correct. The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis.

            People who disagree with us on this would include:

            bdgwx
            Ball4
            bobdroege

            among others.

          • Ball4 says:

            Since ClintR’s wooden horse is bolted down to the spinning mgr, the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per mgr rev. Something that cannot spin on its own central axis more or less than once per rev, cannot spin on its own central axis more or less than once per rev.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, as I said, Ball4 is one of those who disagrees with Norman.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman is approaching reality. He admits that something that is not rotating about its axis is not rotating about its axis.

            But, look at the alarm from Bindidon and Ball4. If other cult members start moving toward reality, what happens to the cult? Reality cannot be permitted!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…” Woods experiment was retested and his could not be duplicated. The opposite effect took place”.

        Norman…your victory dance is a bit premature. You have referenced the Pratt experiment of 2009 which has been disproved subsequently by Nahle in 2011, who in a highly controlled experiment, got almost exactly the same results as Wood in 1909.

        Remember, Wood was in a class of his own as an experimenter. As an expert in gases he would have known about the moisture content of air and its effect on temperature. Pratt, obviously did not. Oddly enough, Pratt’s expertise was in computer science.

        Turns out the problem with Pratt’s experiment was humidity. As Nahle pointed, out, if great pains are not taken to control humidity, the results can become highly unpredictable.

        Speaking of prats, the guy you referenced in your link, David Litt, is one great prat. Doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground re Wood or his experiment.

        Here is a well done mathematical analysis of all three experiments:

        https://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/

        Here’s a link to Nahle’s experiment which is presented formally in great detail:

        http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ps. your reference, David Litt, claimed conduction has no effect with gases and can be ignored. This is the thought process of a guy with a degree in chemistry who cannot think beyond what he has been taught.

          Gases themselves are poor conductors of heat due to the spaces between them but they are not poor absorbers of heat via conduction from a heated surface. If molecules of nitrogen or oxygen are touching a surface like the Earth they will absorb heat directly from that atoms/molecules on that surface. Once those molecules warm, they rise and inter-molecular conduction has nothing to do with it.

          Therefore conduction of heat from a surface to a gas cannot be ignored and should not be ignored since it is apparently the major form of energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Gor,
          You exhibit hardly any understanding of heat transfer phenomena. Apparently EEs don’t get into that very deeply.

          It looks like Nahle made the same mistake as Wood in not being aware of temperature depending on location of the thermometer in the box as discovered by Pratt. The Berkley report did not mention the ghg water vapor which is, on average, 10 times more effective at ground level warming than CO2. The Stanford paper at least acknowledged WV as a ghg. None of them appears to have a substantial understanding of heat transfer phenomena.

          There is little ‘greenhouse’ effect in typical greenhouses. In fact, many greenhouses now use plastic film with hardly any IR blocking because it’s a lot less costly and the increased IR loss is a small fraction of the total. The plastic film is sometimes double walled to trap a layer of air to reduce conductive/convective loss.

          What you call a “well done mathematical analysis” is pathetically wrong. It makes assumptions that are not even possible. As shown by a psychometric chart, even if you start out saturated at 32 C the RH at 55 C would be less than 30%. The assumption of 90% at 55 C is not possible. The moist box idea is bogus.

          Anyone with a decent understanding of heat transfer phenomena and analysis can easily determine that the planet surface averages about 33 C warmer than it would be without ghg. It is unfortunate that it is misleadingly called the GHE. The egregious mistake is assuming that the human contribution to warming is caused by CO2 increase instead of the measured increase in average global water vapor.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, Mr. Nahle’s experiments are useless.

          In all but one case, #5, he does not insulate the sides and bottoms of his boxes. And there’s no mention of insulating the bottom of the box in #5 which is “wrapped” with insulation. As a result, there’s considerable energy loss thru those large areas of cardboard. In case #5, he found that the temperature within the box with insulation exhibits a higher temperature than the box without insulation. No surprise, that’s basic solar collector engineering. Ever heard of a “solar oven”?

          Also, in several of his other cases, he stops collecting data while the temperatures are still increasing, thus the results do not represent equilibrium conditions.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Pangburn, Swanson, please stop trolling.

    • bohous says:

      The atmosphere is very little warmed by the absorbed radiation. Nevertheless, the absorbed energy is reemitted in random direction so that it warms the ground again. At low concentration of greenhouse gases only half of the reemitted radiation reaches the ground. With high concentration of greenhouse gases it can be much more because the reemitted radiation can be absorbed and reemitted again and again.

      • ClintR says:

        The ground can’t warm the atmosphere, but the atmosphere can warm the ground?

        bohous, you don’t think before you type, do you?

        • Ball4 says:

          “The ground can’t warm the atmosphere, but the atmosphere can warm the ground?”

          Sure they can do so, when either out of thermal equilibrium, since stuff trends back to temperature equilibrium when forced out of thermal equilibrium.

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4,

            What rubbish! When is there ever equilibrium? Are you aware that the Earth rotates on its axis, or don’t you believe it? What is your explanation for low level temperature inversions at night?

            Most alarmists would have to invoke cold rays being emitted by the ground! How about you?

          • Ball4 says:

            Does Swenson mean when atm. air is cooled by contact with a colder surface until it becomes cooler than the overlying atmosphere sometimes on clear nights, when the ground cools off more rapidly than air by radiation due Swenson’s cold rays emitted by the ground? Or to what other of your alarmist physics does Swenson refer?

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4,

            So the atmosphere is not warming the ground at the same time it is warming the ground?

            Or does the atmosphere only warm the ground when the sun is shining and the ground is demonstrably hotter than the air?

            Where is your thermal equilibrium? Learn some physics, fool!

          • Ball4 says:

            Try to make some physical sense, Swenson, for actual physical answers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, try to stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bohous…”Nevertheless, the absorbed energy is reemitted in random direction so that it warms the ground again”.

        You do understand that the atmosphere cools with altitude? Therefore from the surface upward, the atmosphere’s temperature has to be equal to or less than the surface. Please explain how heat gets transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.

        While you’re at it, the theory you are espousing, AGW, claims the GHGs in the atmosphere are heated by the surface. According to you, that heat is recycled from the surface via GHGs back to the surface so as to raise the temperature of the surface beyond what it is heated by solar radiation.

        Have you heard of perpetual motion?

        When the surface loses heat by radiation it does so on a massive scale, so massive, that all GHGs in the atmosphere can absorb no more than about 5% of it. That means 95% of the heat lost has to be replaced before the surface can begin warming again.

        Can you explain how that happens?

        • Ball4 says:

          “Please explain how heat gets transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.”

          Heat doesn’t transfer Gordon, EMR does & and EMR is not heat. Also see the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases for energy transfer both ways between containers of gas in thermal contact at different temperatures.

          • Swenson says:

            So all that stuff taught in universities about heat transfer is nonsense? NASA claims that heat is a form of energy which can be transferred between objects!

            Either you are trying to play with words, or you are really stupid. Which is it?

          • Ball4 says:

            “So all that stuff taught in universities about heat transfer is nonsense?”

            Not all, some get it right; Gordon & Swenson usually do not. And neither.

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4,

            So NASA is getting it wrong? And every university in the world, apart from some you refuse to name?

            Try playing with words some more.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Heat doesn’t transfer Gordon, EMR does & and EMR is not heat. Also see the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases for energy transfer both ways between containers of gas in thermal contact at different temperatures”.

            I explained this to you several times before, re heat transfer by radiation. No…heat does not transfer from body to body, it decreases in the hotter body and increases in the cooler body. That’s what is meant by heat transfer via radiation.

            Claiming that EMR is transferred is wrong. EMR is created in the hotter body and heat is lost but in the cooler body EMR is CONVERTED to heat and heat is gained while the EMR is lost. Therefore EMR is not transferred because it is lost during conversion and there is no way for it to exist in a solid body, a liquid, or a gas.

            That also explains why heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. Quantum theory tells us that EMR is radiated from an electron when it drops to a lower quantum orbital energy level. There is no other particle in an atom or molecule that can emit EMR.

            The quantum energy level defines the kinetic energy of the electron and its angular frequency. It so happens that the radiated quantum of EMR has the same frequency and its value in Ev (electron volts) is the same as the difference in Ev between the quantum energy levels through which the electron dropped.

            KE also defines the temperature required to raise the electron to a certain quantum energy level, so heat in a body is directly related to the average quantum energy levels of the electrons in the atoms of the body.

            In order for an electron to absorb EMR, the EMR must have at least the value in Ev to excite the electron to a higher quantum energy level. The EMR frequency must also match the angular frequency of the electron. That is not possible when the EMR is emitted from an electron in a cooler body because the Ev and frequency will be too low to affect an electron in a hotter body.

            Don’t ask where it goes, that like asking where a drop of water goes when it goes over Niagara Falls.

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon: “heat does not transfer from body to body”

            That’s better Gordon.

            Gordon: “Quantum theory tells us that EMR is radiated from an electron when it drops to a lower quantum orbital energy level.”

            Quantum experiments tells us that EMR is radiated from the entire mass of the atomic or polyatomic structure when it drops to a lower quantum energy level in rotation, vibration and electronic transitions; the electron mass is insufficient by itself to do so.

            “In order for an electron to absorb EMR”

            No, the whole atomic or polyatomic structure absorbs and emits the EMR, the electron is not massive enough.

            “KE also defines the temperature required to raise the electron to a certain quantum energy level”

            Not enough collisional energy to do so at Earth troposphere temperatures, the ro-vibrational collison excited states are the main source of Earth’s troposphere air constituent LW radiation.

            “That also explains why heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.”

            Heat cannot be transferred at all Gordon, you just wrote that: “heat does not transfer from body to body”. EMR is not heat so EMR can go both ways.

            This is a good demonstration of Gordon’s confusion in the use of the heat term. Gordon will automatically eliminate this confusion in commenting by simply avoiding use of the heat term.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”NASA claims that heat is a form of energy which can be transferred between objects!”

            They play a lot of games with technicalities, even at NASA. Electromagnetic radiation is still referred to as heat, a throwback to the days before the electron was discovered. Good scientists and mathematicians like Clausius, Stefan, Boltzmann, Maxwell, and even Planck thought heat was transferred through the air as heat rays. They cannot be blamed for that since they had no way of knowing.

            Even ball4 is confused about that. He just stated that EMR is transferred between a hotter body and a cooler body, with the inference that process constitutes a heat transfer.

            In a solid body, heat is transferred atom to atom like electrical current. In fact, the same valence electrons that transfer electric charge also transfer heat energy. With radiation, the process is different. Heat is a property of atoms and where there are no atoms nearby, it cannot be transferred efficiently. Heat will transfer molecule to molecule through air but the efficiency is very low due to the relatively greater distances between molecules.

            When they talk about transferring heat by radiation, they are using technicalities. No heat leaves the hotter body, it is dissipated as it is converted to electromagnetic energy. If the hotter body is not heated by an external means it will continue to cool.

            On the other end, at a cooler body, the same EM emitted from the hotter body has the required energy to be absorbed by electrons in the cooler body. That causes the cooler body to warm. So heat transfer via radiation is a net of the loss in a hotter body and the heat gain in the cooler body.

            That process is not reversible. EM from a cooler body is not absorbed by electrons is a hotter body. Furthermore, the energy level in a cooler body is lower than the energy level in a hotter body and energy cannot be transferred from a low energy level to a higher energy level by its own means. The means of transfer…radiation…is irrelevant.

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon: “heat does not transfer…Heat will transfer…”

            More Gordon confusion. Just drop using the term Gordon since you don’t understand the term.

            Instruments show EMR from a cooler body is absorbed, transmitted, and scattered from a hotter body Gordon, EMR is not heat.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Quantum experiments tells us that EMR is radiated from the entire mass of the atomic or polyatomic structure when it drops to a lower quantum energy level in rotation, vibration and electronic transitions; the electron mass is insufficient by itself to do so”.

            How?? What other particles are radiating EM? The electron is a particle with a negative charge and when it moves, it generates a magnetic field. So you have an ‘ELECTRO’n charge (electric field) and a ‘MAGNETIC’ field. What does Electro + magnetic equal, is it not an electromagnetic field?

            What other particle in an atom or molecule can generate such a field? The electron mass is irrelevant, it has an equal charge with the proton which is nearly 2000 times its mass.

            Electrons create all the light and any other electromagnet energy in the universe. Protons in an atom can’t generate a magnetic field because they don’t move appreciably compared to an orbiting electron.

            Everything you mention, transitional, vibrational and rotational emission is all about the the electron transitions in the inter-atomic bonds.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”Just drop using the term [heat] Gordon since you dont understand the term”.

            Back to your delusion that heat does not exist. How did you put it? Heat is a transfer of energy not a phenomenon. I am still waiting for you to answer which energy is being transferred, is it not thermal energy? Therefore, according to you, heat is a transfer of heat.

            Brilliant!!!

          • Ball4 says:

            “The electron mass is irrelevant”

            No, electron mass is too small to absorb the angular and linear momentum of the absorbed photon exciting polyatomic air up one rotational quantum level. But the whole mass of the spinning and translating polyatomic air constituent is just right.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I am still waiting for you to answer which energy is being transferred”

            I am still waiting for Gordon to understand I’ve already pointed out many times the energy transferred between gas constituents in containers in contact at different temperatures is as defined in the Maxwell-Boltzmann probability distribution. The energy transfer goes both ways.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

        • bohous says:

          If radiation from the ground is absorbed by an atom of CO2 and reemitted in random direction, it is not a thermal radiation of black body. CO2 in the atmosphere does not behave like a black body. If you have a hot fire in the fireplace and put a big mirror nearby, you can feel the heat of the fire reflected by the mirror. It does not mean that the mirror has 300°C. The mirror does not get into thermal equilibrium with the radiation which it reflects. The same it is with greenhouse gases.

          • Swenson says:

            bohous,

            Which is it then? Does CO2 absorb radiation or reflect radiation? Any refraction? Do you know what you are talking about?

          • bdgwx says:

            It also thermalizes the radiation it captures with neighboring molecules.

          • bohous says:

            Swenson, bdgwx:
            Sorry for probably propagating a mistake. Now I see that it is probably not as I wrote.

  32. Dr Spencer. Would you pleases explain to me how it is possible to determine (not estimate) the average global temperature to within 100th of one degree for the year 1500, 1000 BC 10000BC etc? I understand proxies. But are we not comparing thousands of daily readings to a few hundred observations over an extremely minute area of the world? Just doesn’t see at all rational to me!

    • bdgwx says:

      Monthly mean’s today are estimated to within +- 0.05C. I believe it is a bit better for reanalysis, but I don’t think it’s +- 0.01C. Estimates of temperatures in the paleoclimate record have much larger uncertainties. Oh and reanalysis assimilates up to 1 billion readings per month. We have nowhere near that kind of data in the paleoclimate record. Anyway, here is perhaps the most comprehensive collation of past temperatures to date. Error margins are included.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7

    • barry says:

      It is not possible to ‘determine’ the global average temperature to within 100th of one degree. They are only estimates, and various reserach units supplying the estimates provide a rounded figure to 2 or three decimal places.

      The data are numbers to work with. The number given is the central estimate, the uncertainty is explained in the papers (usually). People who work with this data are fully aware of that. People who work with this data do not for one second think that the global average temperature has been ‘determined’ month by month to 2 or 3 decimal places.

      No, it is noobs who are unaware of that, and concerned about the accuracy or precision of the numbers.

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”Real science, multiple measurements. Switching lids to see if the box configuration had anything to do with results. I would say in this case Woods was sloppy”.

    Once again, at your link, you have a computer scientist, Vaughan Pratt, claiming one of the greatest authorities on gases and their radiation/absorp-tion, R.W. Wood was sloppy in his experiment.

    Your computer scientist made an egregious error, he allowed one of his boxes to become contaminated with moisture. The moral to this story is that computer scientists should stick to computer science and let real scientists like Wood do the experiments they are ultimately qualified to perform.

    Wood was notorious for his curiosity and his experimentation. He was so good with what he did with radiation/absorp-tion of gases that Neils Bohr consulted with him, no doubt in relation to the emission/absorp-tion spectra of gases.

    When someone of Wood’s eminence in the field claims he does not think GHGs in the atmosphere can warm it, I’m going with him over a computer scientist or a snotty-nosed grad in chemistry who makes a fundamental error between conduction of heat between molecules in a gas and the absorp-tion of heat via conduction from a surface.

    • Ball4 says:

      R.W. Wood was sloppy in his experimental report, as most can reasonably learn by reading it. So was Nahle sloppy & Nahle’s sloppiness was intentional to support his preconceptions. R. W. Wood actually confirmed the greenhouse effect caused by glass and rock salt plates. Wood only speculated on Earth atm. GHE.

      • Swenson says:

        Ball4,

        Should people believe the father of both infrared and ultraviolet photography or you?

        Heard of Woods glass? How about the Woods lamp used in medicine? The Wood Spot on the moon? Or even the Wood crater?

        You cannot even figure out why Wood ensured that sunlight was filtered through a glass plate before striking the salt plate, can you?

        What a dummy you are!

        • Ball4 says:

          Try to make some physical sense, Swenson, for actual physical answers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ball4…”Try to make some physical sense, Swenson, for actual physical answers”.

          Like you, claiming that heat does not exist? Or that heat is physically transferred between bodies by EMR.

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon, you get it right that heat doesn’t physically transfer between bodies. EMR is one means to transfer thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy between bodies both ways; EMR is not heat.

            Conduction and convection are two other physical means thermal energy can be transferred. Conduction and convection are not heat either.

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4,

            Of course you are right saying heat does not physically transfer between bodies. You cannot weigh heat (well, you can, but thats well above your pay scale. You would only become more confused.) You cannot measure its length, depth, or height.

            As far as conduction and convection are concerned, they are so 19th century, dont you think?

            Keep playing with words.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”Should people believe the father of both infrared and ultraviolet photography or you?

        Heard of Woods glass? How about the Woods lamp used in medicine? The Wood Spot on the moon? Or even the Wood crater?”

        Thanks for the reminder of how great R.W. Wood was as a scientist. You have barely scratched the surface of his accomplishment. I might add that Neils Bohr consulted with him on the spectra of sodium vapour. Wood was an authority on the emission and absorp-tion of gases like CO2.

        When Wood offered his doubt that CO2 could appreciably warm the atmosphere, he was offering an expert opinion that wannabees like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, leader of NASA GISS, could only dream about. Instead, Schmidt consults with theoretician Pierrehumbert, whose main talent seems to be growing a bushy beard.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, Come on guy, R. W. Wood’s experiment in 2009 was at a time when aviation was still in the crib and little was known about the atmosphere above a few thousand feet in altitude. It wasn’t until after the first satellites were placed in orbit that real measurements from outside the atmosphere were even possible. Wood’s expressed doubt based on his limited point of view and tells us nothing about the present state of knowledge and understanding about the atmosphere and global climate.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Correction: Wood’s experiment was published in 1909, six years after the Wright Brothers first flew their powered airplane.

          Wood’s assertion regarding the Greenhouse Effect was not supported by his experiment, since the physical mechanisms are different from an actual greenhouse.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Swanson, please stop trolling.

  34. studentb says:

    Meanwhile:
    The last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic has collapsed, losing more than 40 percent of its area in just two days at the end of July, researchers said on Thursday

    and

    It is becoming more and more likely that 2020 will be the hottest year globally since records have been kept, dating back to the late 1800s.

    It is sad to see the deniers here attempting to practice the art of distraction. Pathetic really.

    • Swenson says:

      So what happened to all the ice? A few million cubic meters just vanished? Of course ice pushed into the sea by a glacier breaks off when there is too much.

      It’s floating! Moves up and down with the tides. Eventually breaks off. That’s where ice bergs come from. Remember the Titanic?

      Keep alarming.

      • Svante says:

        Things get brittle crack when it’s cold, that’s why the ice disintegrated.

        • Swenson says:

          Svante,

          Disintegrated into what, precisely? Did it get so cold it cracked and turned into . . . ? More ice?

          • Svante says:

            Obviously it cracked, fell in the water and sailed away.
            We both know the Earth is cooling, right?

          • Swenson says:

            Svante,

            How does floating ice fall into the water? It’s floating, you ninny!

            By the way, anybody ending an assertion with “right?” is usually trying to get somebody to believe a lie.

      • studentb says:

        furthermore:
        New satellite images from NASA show that Canada’s St. Patrick Bay ice caps have completely disappeared. They have been there for over 5000 years.

        • Swenson says:

          studentb,

          And what was the temperature before the ice caps formed? Above the freezing point of water do you think? Maybe things are going back to their previous state.

          Facts have no impact on an alarmist like you, do they?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          student…”New satellite images from NASA show that Canadas St. Patrick Bay ice caps have completely disappeared. They have been there for over 5000 years”.

          Not so, they formed during the Little Ice Age. It’s a miracle they hung around so long.

    • ClintR says:

      studentb provides us with another perfect example of “cargo cult science”.

      He believes in the AGW hoax, so everything he sees/hears is more “proof” to him that the hoax is valid. He saw the news about the ice shelf breaking off, not realizing that ice shelves break off all the time, even in cold weather. Swenson had to teach studentb about ice bergs!

      And, as is their MO, studentb got in the obligatory false accusation: “It is sad to see the deniers here attempting to practice the art of distraction.”

      studentb must believe reality is a distraction. That’s why he avoids mention of recent record snows in places like Tasmania, Pantagona, and cold temperatures not seen in areas of Sweden in over 50 years. Reality must be ignored.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Cli,
        The hoax is that the warming has been caused by CO2 increase.

        • gbaikie says:

          Other than an “academic concern” does it matter if CO2 did increase global temperature since the time of the Little Ice Age.
          The fact is, we living in an Ice Age.
          The “proper response” when living in the coldest time period, is
          warming is better.

          I also think an improvement would be, if humans lived on ocean.
          And I can see rising sea levels, as a good thing- but it’s not happening.

          I have yet to see argument that rising sea level is bad.
          There is great argument that everyone shouldn’t paying the insurance bills of people who build houses in flood plains or coastal high risk areas. Where is the public interest in increasing real estate values in bad/dangerous places to build houses?

          I think there wide acceptance of the idea politicans are incompetent and generally, evil/stupid/greedy. If sea levels were rising, then maybe their could some “political will” to do something about it.
          It’s not that I like what people of Venice, Italy did with there city, but seems people find it desirable.
          Or is Venice the story of ruin, and we want avoid at all costs?
          It seems that a story of ruin, is what happenned with Japanese city, and their tsunami [2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami] which had nothing to do sea level rise.
          Or think living on coast is fine idea, but make houses designed to handle that environment.
          Or I think people could live on Mars. And living on the ocean is easier, than living on Mars. Also have weird idea that living on the ocean would similar to living on Mars- in terms of technology used. And seems rather dull minded, that have live on Mars, in order to imagine living oceans of Earth. Why should Martians have to get credit for this?
          But anyhow, living in Ice Age. Means warming is better. Actually warming is always better. Or there never warmer period in past, which worse than the Ice Age we living in, or worse less warm conditions.
          There periods were raging volcanic activity, and nothing much to recommend about living at time of super volcanoes erupting, or impacted large impactors from Space {and both could be occurring at about the same time}. BUT an Ice Age period doesn’t exclude such things from happening. Or zero advantage of being in an Ice Age, far as I see, but we have been stuck in one, will continue to be stuck in one.
          And the academic error of CO2 causing any significant warming, might the least of all the academic errors, which are presently occurring.

          • studentb says:

            Everyone can see that deniers like you are shifting to the final argument of scoundrels. Namely that climate warming is happening but it will be beneficial. Just admit you have been wrong all along and go home.

          • Swenson says:

            studentb,

            Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist. Michael Mann did not win a Nobel prize.

            Youre not a denier, are you?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Everyone can see that deniers like you are shifting to the final argument of scoundrels.”

            Within 100 year time period, I think doubling of CO2 would cause about 0 to .5 C of warming.
            And don’t think CO2 will double from 400 to 800 ppm within 100 years.
            But it seems CO2 levels were about 280 ppm about 100 years ago and now are +400 ppm. So increased by 120 ppm and doubling which would an increase of 280 ppm.
            Half of doubling would be 140 ppm, and most of warming would be in the first half {as related it’s to a logarithmic increase].
            So, possible had .2 C increase in global temperature from the 120 ppm increase in global CO2 levels. That pretty close to what IPPC say, they say, at least .2 C increase is due rising CO2 level.
            One can quibble “about .2 C” vs “at least .2 C”

            But my point is what are “you” arguing about. And be more specific
            in my question.
            How much warming do you or anyone on board thinks has occurred from a rise to about 400 ppm, and how much warming will occur within next 50 years.

            Also what will global CO2 levels be in next 50 years or by 2070 AD?

            And if think only 1 C why this problem if you know that we are in an Ice Age.
            I used to think {decades ago} doubling of CO2 might cause 2-3 C and that made me lukewarmer, it seems to me presently, I was wrong as can’t 2-3 C from doubling of CO2 levels.
            But didn’t it was problem if global temperature were to warm by 3 C- and still don’t.
            And at present, I would say that it seems air temperature is not even significant, as what is important in terms global climate is the ocean temperature. Or as it’s said ” More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.” **
            And ocean average temperature is currently about 3.5 C.

            And also should mention no one think CO2 or global warming is about making hotter days. And hottest day ever recorded, remains to be about 100 years ago.

            **I think 99% of global warming is about warming the ocean.
            Do you think warming the ocean is important?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            student…”Namely that climate warming is happening but it will be beneficial”.

            What is ‘climate warming’? Climate is a definition, the average of daily weather over a period. How does a statistic warm?

            You alarmists have tripped over your penchant for renaming quantities like global warming as climate change. Since global warming is itself a statistic bereft of any real meaning, so is climate change.

          • ClintR says:

            gbaikie, be cautious about such statements: “Within 100 year time period, I think doubling of CO2 would cause about 0 to .5 C of warming.”

            I’m glad you included “0”. CO2 cannot raise the temparature of Earth. Dr. Charles Anderson has written extensively about this. Atmospheric CO2 acts to transfer thermal energy to space. Adding more CO2 then acts to lower Earth temperatures. That’s why warmer oceans outgas more CO2. The added CO2 then aids cooling. After cooling, the oceans reabsorb CO2.

            All of the “physics” offered by Warmists to support AGW is bogus. The so-called “energy budget” is bogus. Warmists thrive on nonsense.

          • gbaikie says:

            –ClintR says:
            August 9, 2020 at 9:02 AM
            gbaikie, be cautious about such statements: “Within 100 year time period, I think doubling of CO2 would cause about 0 to .5 C of warming.”

            I’m glad you included “0”. CO2 cannot raise the temperature of Earth.–

            No one has measured the possible effect of CO2 causing an increase in surface air temperature in an atmosphere, but you could say we in “a process” quantifying it’s possible warming effect. And appears to be a low value. Or idea that doubling of CO2 could cause 5 C of warming seems to be disproven, at least in terms of relatively short periods of less than century of time.
            I am not talking about CO2 effect over thousands of years so “within 100 years” is significant aspect of what I am saying.
            Though I am quite certain when talking about thousands of years, the key factor would be related to ocean temperature and changing the temperature of the entire ocean by 1 C, has large effect upon global average surface temperatures. And I don’t think CO2 could have much effect upon ocean temperature, but ocean temperature temperature certainly has effect upon CO2 levels.

            –Dr. Charles Anderson has written extensively about this. Atmospheric CO2 acts to transfer thermal energy to space. Adding more CO2 then acts to lower Earth temperatures. That’s why warmer oceans outgas more CO2. The added CO2 then aids cooling. After cooling, the oceans reabsorb CO2.–

            It seems Dr. Charles Anderson and Roy Spencer, PhD both agree CO2 causes cooling of upper atmosphere. I don’t think CO2 causes cooling, rather I believe the effect of doubling of CO2 is within 0 to .5 C, in time periods of less than 100 years.

            It plausible or could considered a fact, that any surface has limit of how much a blackbody surface can radiate to space. And one could regard the Earth atmosphere and it’s ground/ocean surface as all being a “blackbody surface”, and if one part of surface {ie upper atmosphere] radiate more, the other part of surface “must” radiate less.
            I have some doubts about this- but in accordance to such idea, the more heat loss in upper atmosphere causes the surface air temperature to be higher.
            But one say I sticking with simple fact, that temperature of entire ocean is the global climate. I would say ocean controls atmosphere, and atmosphere has little effect upon ocean. Or atmosphere is weather, and ocean is global climate. And ocean [or global climate} effects weather.

            We living in Ice Age. It is as cold as Earth has been. And reason we in an Ice Age, is due to the average temperature of ocean which is about 3.5 C.
            And within these millions of years we have been in this coldest period, the oceans have been as cold as 1 C and have been as warm as 5 C. Not colder nor warmer than this temperature range.
            A 5 C ocean is what alarmists fear- it has quite an average global surface temperature. But I am not alarmed by prospective or potential of such high global average temperatures.
            First we would be close to leaving the Ice Age conditions, second, it take thousands of years. Third it’s a better climate condition or a more normal climate for Planet Earth.

      • studentb says:

        Ignore this:
        Record heat and wildfires have scorched Siberian Russia.

        • Swenson says:

          OK. Done.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          student…”Record heat and wildfires have scorched Siberian Russia”.

          Oh, dear, Siberia has had a few days of heat which is a few tenths of a degree in excess of what is expected. That means all the CO2 must be accumulating over Siberia?

          Anymore pseudo-science?

          Wild fires tend to happen in dry areas of forest where lightning strikes. Or do you think it has gotten so warm that they have spontaneously combusted?

    • Gordon Robertsong says:

      student…”The last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic has collapsed, losing more than 40 percent of its area in just two days at the end of July, researchers said on Thursday”

      Amazing. Greenland has glaciers, the glaciers flow downhill to the ocean and push out into the ocean causing an ice shelf. Along comes summer, ice begins to melt and weaken, gravity and waves from the oceans flex the shelf and it breaks off.

      Wonder how many millions of times that process has repeated over the ages? An ice shelf forms when the toe of a glacier pushes out over the ocean. Since it’s still attached to the glacier it is not floating on the water but the wave action of the ocean waves stress it. Also, it’s weight stresses it as it moves further from land. Eventually it must break off.

      Along come the idiot alarmist climatologists claiming the ice shelf are breaking because it’s getting warmer. Guess what, it’s not warmer for 11 months of the year.

      I think alarmist climatologists have to be at the bottom of the pile as far as scientists go.

  35. bdgwx says:

    The stratosphere dropped to -0.79C in July 2020. This is now the coldest monthly reading on record.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      bdg,
      That would be consistent with more CO2 in the stratosphere (which counters the slight warming of more CO2 at ground level resulting in CO2 with no net effect on climate)

      • Svante says:

        Yes, if half the population move to the stratosphere.

        • Ball4 says:

          Dan, actually well mixed CO2 can have no effect on planetary total atm. temperature as it doesn’t burn a fuel. The sun has the fuel source to do so. Added ppm CO2 has a midlatitude tropics planetary warming affect at 1bar (and higher) and the opposite cooling effect in most planetary atm. regions below about 0.2bar.

          Observed Earth atm. water vapor amount over land and sea & the variation of the cloud water amount in ice and liquid phase according to Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite data have no monotonic trend 1948-2019. See Fig. 7 & Fig. 9 and discussion in Sec. 3,4.

          https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/hess-24-3899-2020.pdf

      • studentb says:

        Fool! Your comments show you know nothing about physics. Even my cat knows why the stratosphere is cooling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bdg…”The stratosphere dropped to -0.79C in July 2020. This is now the coldest monthly reading on record”.

      1)How do they measure the temperature of the stratosphere at large? It’s a huge space.

      2)Sounds like solar UV has decreased slightly and not warming the atmosphere as much.

      • ren says:

        Thermal radiation is released in the stratosphere in the ozone production process.

      • bdgwx says:

        UAH uses the polar orbiting microwave sounders. The stratosphere is cooling and the troposphere is warming so I’m not sure what your 2nd point was.

      • studentb says:

        “How do they measure the temperature of the stratosphere at large? Its a huge space.”

        “Sounds like solar UV has decreased slightly and not warming the atmosphere as much.”

        Sounds like we have Homer Simpson here.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, wrote:

        How do they measure the temperature of the stratosphere at large? Its a huge space.

        How long have you been posting on this blog? Do you really not understand that the the MSU/AMSU instruments used by UAH and RSS to measure the “temperature” in the lower and middle troposphere are also used to provide data for the stratosphere? And, FYI, the AMSU provides additional data even higher in the atmosphere as well.

        You really need to do your homework or maybe get checked for “old timers disease”.

        • Swenson says:

          Swanny,

          So what’s the temperature of the thermosphere? Shouldn’t it heat the layers below it?

          I forgot. Alarmists claim that only cold things can make things hotter. Like colder atmosphere making hotter surface even hotter!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swannie…”How long have you been posting on this blog? Do you really not understand that the the MSU/AMSU instruments used by UAH and RSS to measure the “temperature” in the lower and middle troposphere are also used to provide data for the stratosphere?”

          Check. UAH also puts out temperature contour maps of the lower troposphere over each landmass to show where the warming/cooling exists. How would you do that in the stratosphere? Is there a NH and SH in the stratosphere? Do they have gridded cells?

          • E. Swanson says:

            gordo, You still have no clue, do you?

            The UAH LT “temperature” maps are constructed from gridded data for the MT, the TP and the LS data, each of which is gridded. Those maps include most of the Earth, including both NH and SH data, though the LT data is not available poleward of 82.5 degrees. The LT is useless over the Antarctic because of the high elevations (RSS excludes data poleward of 70S) and is questionable over the Arctic Ocean because of the decline in sea-ice coverage.

  36. ren says:

    Perhaps the blockage of circulation in the Nino 4 region in the Pacific will end.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png

  37. ren says:

    The temperature of the Peruvian Current remains low.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

  38. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    Can anyone explain why USA48 changes so much more than the other parts of the globe. Could it be that the ara is the smallest?

    • bdgwx says:

      The smaller area and the fact that it is entirely land is a big part of it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Svend…”Can anyone explain why USA48 changes so much more than the other parts of the globe”.

      Could it have something to do with the fact that most surface thermometers are located in the lower 48? Or, if you are using NOAA, GISS, or Had-crut series, could it be the fudging has caught up with them to the extent the readings are all over the place?

      NOAA has fudged the surface record so much it cannot be recognized.

  39. Eben says:

    Money And Corruption Ruining Science | The Frauds Of Science

    https://youtu.be/1yM7dkJrUfw

    • studentb says:

      LOL. How many filthy rich scientists do you know? Has anybody seen a luxury vehicle driven by a person in a lab coat? Or seen nerds cavorting at exclusive holiday resorts?

      • Swenson says:

        studentb,

        If over $1 billion US is filthy rich, there is more than one, but I do not know them personally. Why is a lab coat important to you? I assume the filthy rich generally remove their white coats before climbing into their chauffeur driven Bentleys.

        Which exclusive holiday resorts are you talking about? How would I recognise these nerds? You dont know? What a surprise!

      • Nate says:

        “but I do not know them personally.”

        Yep. Imaginary people.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          Just like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann? I don’t know either one personally. Maybe you are an imaginary person also?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben…”Money And Corruption Ruining Science”

      Robert Gallo, who laid claim to discovering the HIV virus was convicted of scientific misconduct for using the data of a competitor, Luc Montagnier, to lay his claim. Gallo holds the patents on both HIV tests and has become wealthy. He was forced to share his patent profits with Montagnier as punishment for stealing Montagnier’s work.

  40. Swenson says:

    Ball4,

    Maybe you should try and understand physics at the quantum level. Or at any level, really. Mindlessly repeating random scientific sounding words only works for mindless alarmists.

    As another alarmist commenter noted, his cat understands physics as much as he does.

    I suppose * But the whole mass of the spinning and translating polyatomic air constituent is just right.* is as meaningful to an alarmist as it is to a cat.

  41. Bindidon says:

    Svend Ferdinandsen

    You asked above:

    ” Can anyone explain why USA48 changes so much more than the other parts of the globe.”

    As opposed to the ignorant Robertson, who all the time boasts about allegedly fudged data but didn’t even know what you meant with ‘USA48’, bdgwx gave you a good answer.

    The kernel reason for the higher deviations from the mean is indeed the fact that USA48 is a small portion of the Globe (be it land or ocean doesn’t matter).

    Here is for example a comparison of UAH’s original data

    https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo

    for USA48 with the data for all land portions of the Globe in the Lower Troposphere:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R0lXfoybIxPIUJCAHfm7VG2WVv6OKXvY/view

    You see that the global blue line is much more homogeneous, with deviations smaller than those in the red USA48 line: while the red line results of averaging the data of about 200 UAH grid cells, the blue line represents the average of over 2800 of these cells.

    Though differing by a lot, the two series show similar linear trends (0.17 C / decade for USA48 vs. 0.18 for all land areas).

    You would obtain a similar graph when comparing for example the UAH data above the relatively small Southern circumpolar ocean with all ocean portions of the Globe (but with more different trends).

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Here is for example a comparison of UAHs original data….for USA48 with the data for all land portions of the Globe in the Lower Troposphere:

      Beware!!!…more amateur fudging on Binny’s Excel app.

  42. Bindidon says:

    It is always very simple to discredit the work of others and to pretend on a blog that their result is ‘fudged’: no one requests any proof of what you pretend, and no one wants to know who you really are behind your pseudonym, or, even worse, behind a faked pseudo real name.

    You can pretend to have been educated in engineering, even though not being able to reproduce simplest Excel data processing, let alone to develop, verify and validate a software package processing gigabytes of climate data like temperature or sea ice.

    And no one wonders that exactly those people who lack any knowledge in data processing always discredit those who are able to do that, by pretending that they make ‘faked graphs out of fudged data’.

    The boaster nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’ is the greatest specialist for such disgusting behavior.

    *
    Here is a comparison, within the period 1979-2020, of UAH’s CONUS aka USA48 data with
    – NOAA’s CONUS average;
    – the average of all available GHCN daily station data for CONUS.

    1. This is the NOAA data for CONUS’ average temperature from 1979 till now:

    https://tinyurl.com/yy2q4p7f

    Anybody can download the data (absolute monthly values in Fahrenheit) in csv format:

    https://tinyurl.com/y49mtg8o

    and compute anomalies in Celsius wrt e.g. the mean of 1981-2010 out of it, by using Excel or a similar tool.

    All you need is minimal knowledge about spreadsheet management: any real engineer has acquired such knowledge during professional life.

    *
    2. What is less simple is to process surface station data stored in the GHCN daily corner:

    https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x

    and to construct an anomaly time series for CONUS out of the data provided by all available stations (on average for 1979 till now: about 7000 each year).

    Validation and verification of such times series is hard work.

    *
    Having now all that data at hand, you can compare in a graph the NOAA and GHCN daily time series with UAH’s USA48 data:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhsNLiPz9Rs87SCaxcEv2TE8pONmHSbc/view

    Though showing similar running means, the three series nevertheless show greater differences, because their linear trend estimates differ by more than some might accept.

    While UAH’s data trend is more or less similar to the raw GHCN daily data (0.17 C / decade vs. 0.20 for GHCN), NOAA’s data shows a much higher trend (0.27 C / decade); that’s a lot indeed.

    *
    But… to simply pretend that NOAA’s data is fudged: that is disingenuous and disgusting.

    One has to prove that the data provided by NOAA is not correct. No one until now (and especially NOT Goddard aka Heller) did ever that complex job.

    All software has been made available by NOAA: feel free to prove it’s wrong.

    J.-P. D.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      Are you the same person who blamed open-source software for mistakes due to your inability to properly use a spreadsheet? Oh dear.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Swenson…”Are you the same person who blamed open-source software for mistakes due to your inability to properly use a spreadsheet? Oh dear.”

        Binny was only emulating one of his heroes, James Hansen, former leader of GISS. Hansen predicted climate disaster in 1988, along with his hero, Al Gore, on national TV, and within 10 years had to retract his claim. He blamed it on an error in his computer. The alarmists bought it because they think computers program themselves and think for themselves.

      • Bindidon says:

        Swenson

        ” Are you the same person who blamed open-source software for mistakes due to your inability to properly use a spreadsheet? Oh dear. ”

        Ooooh! Swenson seems to be progressing up the ranks, and moves from the simple, mere commentator to Robertson’s newest acolyte.

        At least in lying you manage to perfectly succeed, Swenson.

        It was clear from my message to MrZ that the mistake was due to Libre Office Calc, and not to me.

        Di you ever use that tool, Swenson? Very probably not; otherwise, you would yourself have noticed a number of bugs in it (which of course never happened anywhere when using the original Excel).

        What matters to me is that after shutdown and reboot, the bug no longer was active in the spreadsheet.

        What you think is simply redundant.

        Maybe you belong to those dumb ignorants who pretend that the Moon cannot rotate about its own center of mass? Well I wouldn’t wonder.

        J.-P. D.

        • ClintR says:

          I’m not aware of anyone that is pretending such nonsense. If Moon had an original torque it would be rotating about its center of mass. But since it is not rotating, it obviously never had the correct torque.

        • Bindidon says:

          Swenson

          Just a few lines above you might admire one of those perfect ignorants who don’t know anything about

          – what happens in the accretion disks around fresh-born stars
          and
          – why nearly none of the relevant celestial bodies around us lack spin. Not one!

          And because they never read anything written by Newton, let alone by Laplace, they never will understand that no one did ever pretend that torques are responsible for any spin.

          The contrary is the case: the tidal torques exerted by orbited and orbiting bodies on each another

          – transfer a part of the spin angular momentum of the orbited object to the revolution angular momentum of the orbiting object
          and
          – reduce the orbiting object’s spin angular momentum as well.

          It is perfectly measurable today that

          – Earth spin reduces such that the length of Earth’s day decreases by 2 msec / century
          – Moon’s distance from Earth increases by 3.8 cm / year.

          J.-P. D.

          • ClintR says:

            Bindidon, you mix some facts in with your confused physics. The result is just the facts being perverted by your confused physics.

            Such tricks only work on other trolls.

            Aren’t you the one that didn’t want to pollute this thread with the Moon issue?

          • ClintR says:

            PS Just to clarify, since Bindidon spouted so much nonsense: Gravity can NOT create a torque on a distant body.

          • Svante says:

            How come the Moon is tidally locked then?
            Please elaborate.

          • ClintR says:

            It’s NOT “tidally locked”, Svante. That’s just an excuse as to why it’s not rotating about its axis. But, that makes it even funnier because they also claim it is rotating about its axis!

            Don’t you wish you could understand physics?

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            You never even took high school physics if you make this statement

            PS Just to clarify, since Bindidon spouted so much nonsense: Gravity can NOT create a torque on a distant body.

            I’ll do you a favor and add the qualifiers, if and only if the distant body is symmetrical with a uniform density.

            Otherwise if one side is heavier than the other side, gravity will indeed create a torque on the body.

            Too stupid for school.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”– what happens in the accretion disks around fresh-born stars…”

            No one has ever seen a star form just as no one witnessed the Big Bang. These are nothing but theories put forward by egotists who need to justify their large salaries and funding.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”How come the Moon is tidally locked then?
            Please elaborate”.

            Who said it was ever turning?

          • ClintR says:

            bobdroege says: “Otherwise if one side is heavier than the other side, gravity will indeed create a torque on the body.”

            Here, bob is claiming that gravity can create a torque on a body, if the mass distribution is lopsided. Galileo demonstrated that acceleration due to gravity does NOT depend on mass, c 1590. Newton proved Galileo’s work an elaborate mathematical proof, c 1700.

            Then, in 1971, an Apollo 15 astronaut repeated the experiment on the Moon! To make it even more interesting, he used a feather and a hammer.

            So gravity can NOT create a torque on an orbiting object. bob is completely wrong. This is why I enjoy these idiots so much. They are always sure they are brilliant, but they seldom get anything right!

          • ClintR says:

            Here’s the link to the video of the experiment done on Moon, but you must delete the “*” from the link:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joiD*Ck_3t20

          • bobdroege says:

            CLintR,

            Look Dork for brains, you said distant body, not orbiting body.

            The acceleration is dependent on the force, F = m a

            And the force is dependent on the masses of the two objects and the distance between them

            F = (G M1 M2)/ r^2

            What you think about Gallileo is crap.

            The Moon is slowly slowing the spin of the earth, by putting a torque on the earth.

          • ClintR says:

            bob doesn’t understand physics and possibly never heard of Galileo, hence the misspelling of the name. But his blatant avoidance of reality is what makes him an idiot.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-509357

          • Ball4 says:

            bob, ClintR writes the moon doesn’t spin on its own axis so chooses experiments where the cannonball, hammer, and feather don’t spin on their own axis unlike the observed moon. This shows how ClintR easily gets confused applying unreal versions of physical system mechanics and thus chooses to ignore observational reality in entertaining comments.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            Keep on topic dumbass

            The topic is not the fact that two objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum.

            It’s the gravitational force equation and whether or not bodies can produce torque due to gravitation.

            As the fact that the Earth’s spin is slowing due to the torque applied by the Moon on the Earth.

            Just keep posting like the dumbass you are.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …but as ClintR pointed out to Svante, even if you agree with the principle of tidal locking, that should lead you to conclude that the moon is not rotating on its own axis. After all, the phrase is “tidal locking” not “tidal freedom-of-movement”. If something is locked so that it’s unable to rotate on its own axis, then it can’t be rotating on its own axis.

          • ClintR says:

            Perfect! Ball4 joins in to twist and distort reality with bob.

            Next up: Svante, Norman, Swanson, Nate, Bindidon, and the newbie studentb.

          • Ball4 says:

            Observed reality: If something is locked so that it’s unable to rotate on its own axis more or less than once per orbit, then it can’t be rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit.

            ClintR’s claimed twisted reality always needs untwisting back to observed reality. bob is performing that service, repeatedly.

          • bobdroege says:

            To all the dumbasses joining in

            Tidal locking refers to the fact that the rate of rotation and the rate of orbiting are locked to the same period.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …or, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, zero axial rotations per orbit.

          • bobdroege says:

            Zero axial rotations are observed only from a rotating reference frame, you are too stupid to understand that.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No blob, when the fixed wooden horse orbits on the carousel, it is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.

          • Ball4 says:

            Correcting to reality: when the fixed wooden horse orbits on the carousel, it is not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit, in the inertial reference frame.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            In the inertial reference frame centered on the middle of the carousel, the fixed wooden horse is rotating about the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis. In the inertial reference frame centered on the horse itself, the horse appears to be rotating on its own axis, but of course in reality it is still not rotating on its own axis, it is just rotating about the center of the carousel.

          • Ball4 says:

            Correcting to reality: In the inertial reference frame centered on the middle of the carousel, the fixed wooden horse is orbiting about the central axis of the carousel, and the horse rotates once, no more & no less, on its own axis per orbit. In the inertial reference frame centered on the horse itself, the horse doesn’t appear to be rotating at all, but of course in reality it is still rotating on its own axis, because the horse doesn’t have enough gravity to bend all of space causing the universe to orbit about the horse.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 proves he doesn’t know what an inertial reference frame is, and simultaneously attacks a ridiculous straw man. A troll to be ignored.

          • bobdroege says:

            Hey dumbass,

            You claim

            “In the inertial reference frame centered on the horse itself, the horse appears to be rotating on its own axis, but of course in reality it is still not rotating on its own axis, it is just rotating about the center of the carousel.”

            Dumbass, you can’t center an inertial reference frame on the horse on the carousel because the horse on the carousel is accelerating, I repeat dumbass.

            And as for the horse on the carousel, it is defining the axis that it is rotating around, so it is indeed rotating on it’s own axis.

            again dumbass

          • Ball4 says:

            “you cant center an inertial reference frame on the horse on the carousel”

            “You” can do so, but then that horse isn’t accelerating, the universe is then accelerating around the horse which is, as DREMT points out (stumbles into), ridiculous.

            That’s also why ClintR is ridiculously writing the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis, because that implies the universe is orbiting the moon which as DREMT stumbles into, really is ridiculous and that is why ClintR is such a keen entertainer in these parts.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob has no idea what he’s talking about.

          • bobdroege says:

            That’s all right DREMPTY,

            Keep spitting out words without knowing what they mean.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You can center your inertial reference frame where you like. If there were some requirement that you don’t center it on an object that is accelerating, you wouldn’t be able to center your inertial reference frame anywhere, now would you, blob? Except perhaps the center of the Universe…

          • Ball4 says:

            “Except perhaps the center of the Universe…”

            Bingo. Even that – many are not sure about, the universe might be rotating in which case there has to be another universe (or more) with equal and opposite angular momentum.

            ClintR writes the moon is not rotating so ClintR places the universe center inertial frame fixed to the moon so the stars are observed rotating about that frame. Which as DREMT comments, is ridiculous. Thus it is the moon spinning on its own internal axis in our universe except for ClintR and a few other keen entertainers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Like I said, Ball4 is a troll…

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Gawd, you’re stupid

            “You can center your inertial reference frame where you like. If there were some requirement that you dont center it on an object that is accelerating, you wouldnt be able to center your inertial reference frame anywhere, now would you, blob? Except perhaps the center of the Universe”

            From Wikipedia, should be reliable enough

            “An inertial frame of reference in classical physics and special relativity possesses the property that in this frame of reference a body with zero net force acting upon it does not accelerate; that is, such a body is at rest or moving at a constant velocity.”

            So yes, for the reference frame to be inertial, it must not be accelerating, so you could place it anywhere that is not accelerating, say an object moving at a constant velocity in a straight line.

            As for the center of the universe, did you mean the center of the observable universe or the center of the whole universe?

            Dumbass

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are obviously not grasping what I mean by “centering”.

            Using polar co-ordinates, radius r=0 would be fixed on the wooden horse.
            Angle a=0 would be pointed towards some fixed star.

            That is an inertial reference frame as far as bdgwx and myself are concerned.

          • bobdroege says:

            Then it’s fine as long as the merry-go-round is not spinning.

            But then the merry-go-round is not spinning, so the horse is not spinning, but you are still as dumb as a box of carousel horses.

            I understand what you mean by centering, but you can’t center an inertial reference frame on something that is moving a circle, because that something is accelerating.

            Dumbass

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …which would rule out using an inertial reference frame in almost every astronomical example…

          • bobdroege says:

            And your point would be, dumbass?

            My point would be, when using an inertial reference frame, you would see that the moon is rotating on its axis.

            Because a line drawn from the center of the Moon to the surface of the Moon would point in different directions as time passes.

            Dumbass.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Where are you centering this inertial reference frame, blob?

          • ClintR says:

            bob, after all the discussions several months ago, anyone who tries to use “inertial reference frame” to determine if an orbiting object is also rotating about its axis, is an idiot.

            That’s why DREMT’s simple example of a “chalk circle” is such genius. The chalk circle can NOT rotate about its axis. Just as the wooden horse on a merry-go-round, securely bolted to the floor, can NOT rotate about its axis.

            To determine if the orbiting object is actually rotating about its axis, you need to view from the center of the merry-go-round.

            You will not be able to understand any of this.

          • Svante says:

            Keyword: “idiot”.

          • bobdroege says:

            Dumbass DREMPTY,

            I don’t have to center it anywhere, dumbass, as long as it’s not accelerating it’s good to go.

            Dumbass.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            You have to be at least as smart as an idiot to understand why the Moon is actually rotating on its axis and orbiting the Earth around another axis.

            Unfortunately you can’t even compete with Idiots in a drooling contest, much less a science fair.

            Because you are dumber than an idiot.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “I don’t have to center it anywhere, dumbass, as long as it’s not accelerating it’s good to go”

            A pathetic dodge, blob.

          • ClintR says:

            Just as predicted, bob can not understand DREMT’s simple example. Nor could bob understand the clear example provided by the NASA astronaut.

            bob just seems content to hurl insults and profanities.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”mail-in is open to abuse. You go to a voting station because you can go behind curtains and vote secretly. With mail-in, anyone can bully a person into voting for a certain candidate”.

            You are having issues with your mind’s propensity to assume facts rather than look at the real facts. If a wooden horse on a MGR has its 4 feet bolted to the platform it cannot turn about its own axis.

            I have no idea where you get the notion that a changing of position of the horse due to the axial rotation of the platform to which it is attached constitutes a rotation about its own COG.

            Each particle on the horse is turning in independent parallel orbits about the centre of the MGR making it impossible for them to rotate about the horse’s COG. The COG is orbiting on its own parallel path, parallel with all other particles.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            “bob, after all the discussions several months ago, anyone who tries to use inertial reference frame to determine if an orbiting object is also rotating about its axis, is an idiot.”

            and

            “You will not be able to understand any of this.”

            and

            bob just seems content to hurl insults and profanities.

            If you are going to whine about insults maybe you shouldn’t have started throwing insults.

            Just a thought.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            you still don’t understand the requirements for an inertial reference frame even after I googled it for you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are still dodging, blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Lets see if you can properly center an inertial reference frame.

            Where would you center it?

            You don’t know when you have been beaten do you?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I centered mine correctly in the examples I gave earlier as far as bdgwx and myself are concerned. We were discussing such examples in the debate a few months ago.

            You are the one who is avoiding answering my 2:38PM question.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Nope, you centered it incorrectly on a object that was accelerating, therefore not an inertial reference frame.

            And I answered your question on where to center it, anywhere as long as it is not accelerating.

            Keep digging your hole.

            You have proven without a doubt that you know next to nothing.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “anywhere as long as it is not accelerating”, is not an answer, blob. The point is, in almost every astronomical example, you would need to center your inertial reference frame on an object that is accelerating. Your interpretation of your Wiki link is thus obviously incorrect, since inertial reference frames are used in astronomy.

            If all of this is some desperate attempt to prove I don’t know something, it’s a bit of a backfire for your team…both with the collateral damage on bdgwx, and on the fact that you can no longer argue about inertial reference frames yourself, since you can’t give a straight answer on where you would center it for the moon!

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY

            You don’t accept my answer that an inertial reference frame can be centered anywhere that is not accelerating. So you think I am not interpreting wiki correctly, here is another.

            “Any reference frame which is accelerating with respect to absolute space, such as the car’s frame when the light turns green and the driver steps on the gas, will not be inertial.”

            from here
            https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/Inertial_Frames_of_Reference

            Just because you can’t accept my answer that I can put the reference frame anywhere that’s not accelerating, doesn’t mean I’m wrong, it means you can’t accept the definitions commonly accepted by astronomers, which means you are a crackpot.

            Or I can answer what I have stated from the very beginning, on the distant stars, they are also accelerating, but so slowly we can ignore that amount of acceleration as it would not affect the measured rate of rotation for an object.

            Yeah, inertial reference frames are used in Astronomy, that’s how astronomers since the time of Newton and Cassini have figured out that the Moon is indeed rotating around one axis and orbiting the Earth around another.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Where would you center your inertial reference frame for the moon, blob?

          • bobdroege says:

            Same, on the distant stars DR EMPTY

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, blob. You don’t center it on the distant stars.

            Using polar coordinates, angle a=0 is fixed on a distant star, sure.
            Where is radius r=0?

            That is what I meant by centering. As I already explained.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Good enough for Newton, good enough for me.

            It’s not where it’s centered, it’s whether or not it’s accelerating.

            Which it would be if you do like you do and center it anywhere on the Moon.

            Or on a wooden horse on a merry-go-round.

            The wooden horse is accelerating as it keeps changing direction as it moves with the merry-go-round.

            “Using polar co-ordinates, radius r=0 would be fixed on the wooden horse.”

            Nope, in that case it’s not an inertial reference frame.

            “An example of a non-inertial frame is a rotating frame, such as a carousel.”

            from here

            http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/lecture1.htm

          • bdgwx says:

            To determine the rotation rate of an astronomical body you set radius r=0 through the center of mass and angle a=0 pointed at a distant star.

          • bobdroege says:

            bdgwx,

            That is true and you can do that to determine if the Moon is rotating or not, and that method shows the Moon is rotating.

            However, that is not an inertial reference frame if applied to the Moon, as the Moon’s velocity is not constant as the Moon is accelerating due to the pull of Earth’s gravity.

            That’s the part DR EMPTY refuses to consider nor acknowledge.

          • bobdroege says:

            Another definition that won’t help

            An inertial frame is defined as one in which Newtons law of inertia holdsthat is, any body which isnt being acted on by an outside force stays at rest if it is initially at rest, or continues to move at a constant velocity if thats what it was doing to begin with. An example of a non-inertial frame is a rotating frame, such as a carousel.

            from

            http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/lecture1.htm

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Myself and bdgwx would refer to a reference frame with a=0 pointed at a distant star and r=0 on the cm of the moon as an inertial reference frame. If you disagree, explain where you would put r=0. Note that you can’t say “the distant stars” like you did previously.

            Stop dodging the question and answer it this time.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY

            You are refusing to acknowledge that an inertial reference frame can’t be centered on a object that is accelerating.

            It’s no use until you do that.

            You are wrong in trying to center an inertial reference frame on an accelerating object.

            So I will continue to correct you until you get it, but it’s looking like you want to continue making shit up as you go.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Inertial reference frames don’t settle the issue anyway, blob, so none of this really matters, but…

            …where would you put r=0? I’m going to keep asking you until you get the obvious point being made, but it’s looking like you want to keep making shit up as you go.

          • bdgwx says:

            My selection of reference frame isn’t translationally inertial, but it is rotationally inertial. And since we’re only trying to quantify rotational angular velocity and not orbital angular velocity setting radius r=0 through the cm is the easiest mathematically speaking while still meeting the requirement of being rotationally inertial.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and if you set r=0 through the Earth-moon barycenter instead, in order to quantify orbital angular momentum, it would still not be translationally inertial.

            The problem with using a reference frame where r=0 is set on the cm of the wooden horse (or moon) and where a=0 is pointed towards a distant star is, it leads you to the erroneous conclusion that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis.

            The wooden horse is bolted to the floor of the platform. It physically cannot rotate on its own axis. When the platform is rotating, the wooden horse is simply rotating about the center of the platform. It is not rotating on its own axis!

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            OK, we can use non-inertial reference frames.

            I’ll center it on the center of gravity of the Moon, or better yet, the geographical center of the Moon.

            A line from there pointing at a distant star.

            At Time = 0 we have a line from the center of the Moon to a point on the surface of the Moon, to the distant star.

            If the Moon were not rotating at time T = one day, we no longer have 3 points in a line, therefore the Moon is spinning on its axis.

            I don’t care about the merry go round, if you say the horse is not rotating on its axis, fine, but the question is the Moon.

          • bdgwx says:

            Well the horse too has angular velocity and momentum about its own axis in a rotationally inertial frame. Just because the horse and mgr are attached and physically constrained such that the rotational and orbital angular velocity of the horse are always equal does not in any way take away from the fact that the horse is rotating per the definition of rotation as used for astronomical bodies. That’s just how the math works out. That definition happens to be useful for the horse as well since if the horse were to instantly detach from mgr you would observe it rotating (in the sense DREMT is envisioning) as it translated in a line tangent to the mgr rotation. It does so because angular momentum is conserved in rotationally inertial reference frames.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bdgwx and blob, the wooden horse on the carousel is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely orbiting the center of the merry-go-round. Something that is physically constrained such that it cannot rotate on its own axis, is not rotating on its own axis.

            blob, even somebody of your level of intelligence ought to be able to relate what you are saying about the moon to the merry-go-round example. If you conclude the moon is rotating on its own axis using the method you outline, then you would also conclude the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis. So you don’t get to say, “fine, well the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, but the moon is”.

            The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the center of the carousel. The moon is not rotating on its own axis, it is orbiting about the Earth-moon barycenter.

          • bdgwx says:

            I think the debate centers around how “rotation” is defined. The non-spiner definition is clearly different than what bob, me, many of the other posters on here, and every astronomer and scientist has already agreed upon. The Moon is rotating because it satisfies that definition. The debate could probably be reconciled if the non-spinners would agree to use phrasing like “apparent rotation” or whatever that describes the movement of the Moon from the perspective an observer in the non-inertial reference frame where a=0 is fixed to the line between the Moon and Earth. Since “rotation” itself is already defined and reserved to describe a different concept it creates confusion in discussion when it is hijacked for another concept. I will say that the definition of “tidal locked” describes the motion of the Moon well already so I don’t see what the issue is in having the non-spinners accept it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, the debate centers on the “Spinners” inability to understand that an object that can’t rotate on its own axis is not rotating on its own axis. Plus they refuse to acknowledge that rotation about an axis external to the body (e.g the wooden horse rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel) is a separate and independent motion to axial rotation (e.g the Earth rotating on its own axis).

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            I have freedom of speech so I can say fine as regards to the horse on the carousel, I choose to ignore your arguments about the horsey, save one.

            This one

            The horse is spinning on its own axis and rotating around the carousel on another axis, I’m picking a reference frame where this is true, and there is one, the thing is and this is where it differs from the moon, these two axes in regards to the horse are parallel.

            The two axes with regard to the Moon are not parallel, and as I have said before, the carousel is a poor model for motion of the moon.

            If you don’t care about insulting Dr Roy, then I don’t care about your my little pony.

          • bobdroege says:

            I center my reference frame on the center of the horse on the carousel with the x-axis pointing to the star Sirius. I keep myself pointing to the star Sirius.

            This is, of course a non-inertial reference frame.

            As the carousel rotates the horse rotates with respect to that line pointing to Sirius, but around the z-axis.

            Also the center of the carousel appears to rotate around the horse.

            That the my little pony show for today, tune in tomorrow for something completely different.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As I said, the debate centers on the “Spinners” inability to understand that an object that can’t rotate on its own axis is not rotating on its own axis. Plus they refuse to acknowledge that rotation about an axis external to the body (e.g the wooden horse rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel) is a separate and independent motion to axial rotation (e.g the Earth rotating on its own axis).

            blob demonstrates that nicely.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            What is preventing the Moon from rotating on its axis?

          • bobdroege says:

            Of course DR EMPTY,

            In the reference frame I selected the carousel which your little pony is bolted to is also rotating, so the bolts are not preventing the your little pony from rotating.

            Sorry charlie.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob demonstrates that nicely.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            You giving up already?

            No explanation for what keeps the Moon from rotating?

            What does keep the Moon from rotating, massive beams installed by Tesla?

            It’s bolted down with big-ass bolts?

            There’s a big string connecting it to the Earth?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-509394

            You have completely missed the point, though. Nobody is arguing that the moon has to be unable to rotate on its own axis. The point is that an object like the wooden horse, which is unable to rotate on its own axis, moves as per the moon.

            Talking to you is a waste of time.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Don’t give that you are not arguing that the Moon can’t rotate on its axis because that is the exact argument that you are making.

            This is what you just linked to

            “but as ClintR pointed out to Svante, even if you agree with the principle of tidal locking, that should lead you to conclude that the moon is not rotating on its own axis. After all, the phrase is tidal locking not tidal freedom-of-movement. If something is locked so that its unable to rotate on its own axis, then it cant be rotating on its own axis.”

            So you are arguing that the Moon is tidally locked so that it’s unable to rotate on its own axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s one way of looking at it.

            You have completely missed the point, though. Nobody is arguing that the moon has to be unable to rotate on its own axis. The point is that an object like the wooden horse, which is unable to rotate on its own axis, moves as per the moon.

            Talking to you is a waste of time.

          • bobdroege says:

            And DR EMPTY,

            You keep avoiding responding to the fact that the axis the Moon rotates around and the axis the Moon orbits around are not parallel.

            Address that and we might get somewhere.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have responded to it countless times before. You simply count on me getting so bored responding to you time and time again on the same points that I stop responding, at which point you claim victory. Otherwise known as the David App.ell technique. Here we go again:

            1) The moon does not rotate on its own axis, so there are not two axes to compare. The moon only orbits about the Earth/moon barycenter. The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis, the moon just orbits.

            2) Based on observations of the moon in orbit, astronomers have determined where the axis passing through the cm of the moon would be, based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates on its own axis. This is hardly a surprise. This “axis“ is not parallel to the axis the moon orbits around. This has no bearing on whether or not the moon actually rotates about this imaginary line that they have drawn through the body.

          • Nate says:

            “As I said, the debate centers on the ‘Spinners’ inability to understand that an object that can’t rotate on its own axis is not rotating on its own axis.”

            It is pointless to ‘debate’ with someone like DREMT who will never debate honestly nor ever be guided by logic and facts.

            In the end he simply declares his erroneous beliefs to be facts, regardless.

          • Nate says:

            “Based on observations of the moon in orbit, astronomers have determined where the axis passing through the cm of the moon would be, based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates on its own axis.”

            Ha ha ha…’would be’.

            Its hard to believe this pretzel logic ‘would be’ an argument that any serious person could make.

          • bobdroege says:

            I think I am going to stop playing whack-a-mole on this machine and try some others.

            Though I could play whack-a-mole until I am drenched in sweat or I run out of quarters.

            This mole just accused thousands of astronomers of fraud.

            Going back hundreds of years.

            Nice work DR EMPTY.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, blob, no accusations of fraud here. “Erroneous” means they were wrong, but I’m sure sincere in their beliefs.

            Obviously arguing that the moon does not rotate on its own axis means arguing that astronomers have had it wrong for centuries, yes. Nevertheless, arguments about the moon not rotating on its own axis have also been around for centuries, too. We know of Tesla’s arguments from just over a hundred years ago, but there were others before him, too.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            The thing is.

            You start with your conclusion as your premise

            “1) The moon does not rotate on its own axis, so there are not two axes to compare. The moon only orbits about the Earth/moon barycenter. The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis, the moon just orbits.”

            I’ll give you a hint, that’s not how the scientific method works.

            The piece of data, that there are two axes with respect to the Moon, you just ignore that fact, again that’s not how the scientific method works.

            Remember you are supposed to stab them with the pointy end, not the other way round.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I was just pointing out that from the “Non-Spinner” perspective there are not two axes to compare. If I were to accept that there were, I would automatically be conceding the whole argument, now wouldn’t I, blob? Logic is not your strong suit, either.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            So you are finally admitting that you are clinging to your position when facts don’t support your case.

            You are permitted your own positions, your own theories, but not your own facts.

            So the bottom line is that you deny facts.

            The axis the Moon rotates around is an observed fact.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob, you really do come out with some stupid stuff. Saying “the axis the Moon rotates around is an observed fact” is no different to saying “it’s an observed fact, the Moon rotates on its own axis”.

            Obviously, “Non-Spinners” disagree that the axis exists, because we disagree that the moon rotates on its own axis. So we disagree both that it’s an observed fact that there is an axis the moon rotates around, and that the moon rotates on its own axis.

            Astronomers can define where they believe the axis is, from studying the motion of the moon in its orbit, and based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates about that imaginary line. It doesn’t make the existence of that axis a fact!

            It means, “if you believe the moon rotates on its own axis, here is where we think that axis is”. From that, you can claim there’s a North Pole, a South Pole, and an equator. They are also not “facts”, they are just placed where astronomers think they are, based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates on its own axis.

          • Nate says:

            “From that, you can claim theres a North Pole, a South Pole, and an equator. They are also not ‘facts'”

            The planned missions to land at the non-existent Lunar South Pole will have to be scrapped…or perhaps DREMTs bizarre beliefs is just delusion.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            So how do the non-spinners explain libration?

            I just want to see how more facts fit into your theory.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Simple: it is just the way the moon moves in its orbit. Coupled with the fact that the orbit is elliptical.

            Nobody is denying libration occurs, just as nobody is denying that there is a precise location on the moon which they have labelled the North Pole.

            If you try really, really hard, you might be able to attack arguments I am actually making, rather than straw men.

          • Nate says:

            You are right Bob, he has always evaded explaining libration with his model, since it cannot be done.

            Yet no problem for the religion.

          • Nate says:

            Nor does he explain what his model’s definition of a Pole is. And how the ‘labelled’ Lunar Poles do not satisfy this definition.

            You see his model is vague on all such details that Astronomy has clearly and completely explained centuries ago.

            Yet he is certain they have it all wrong.

            Usually in science, when a theory is wrong, some data appears that disagrees with it, particularly given 300 y.

            What data for the Moon can he point out that disagrees with Astronomy?

            Lacking that, his belief serves no purpose for science.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, since there has been nothing more from anybody that I am actually responding to, I guess that, as they say, is that.

          • Nate says:

            Thats that. Yep.

            With no one finding any disagreements between Lunar observations and astrophysics models, we can comfortably put this topic to bed.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Well, since there has been nothing more from anybody that I am actually responding to, I guess that, as they say, is that.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”This is the NOAA data for CONUS average temperature from 1979 till now:”

      Correction…”This is the NOAA ‘FUDGED’ data for CONUS average temperature from 1979 till now:

      Reading through the following site exposes massive amounts of proof that NOAA has fudged the record, and that GISS and Had-crut feed off that fudged data.

      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/

      “In short, modern folks finding reasons to re-write the past. Perhaps good reasons. Perhaps not. Well see that point being argued for decades to come (perhaps longer). Yes, all these good folks believe they are right, and that they can not have made an error. Yet the changes are of the size and scope sufficient to account for all the Warming seen in the historical record. Surely when the warming we find in the temperature record is largely attributable to changes of method of adjusting that data, and processing it into a data series, there is sufficient cause for alarm to council against rash actions based on such a malleable history”.

  43. Swenson says:

    Just like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann?

    • studentb says:

      Both will eventually receive well deserved nobel prizes.

      • Swenson says:

        studentb,

        MIchael Mann has already awarded himself a Nobel prize. Do you think Gavin will give him another one?

      • Chris Hanley says:

        Why don’t you go do your homework and then tidy your room.
        Everyone wants to save the planet but no-one wants to help Mum with the chores.

      • Swenson says:

        Studentb,

        Is your Mann this one –

        *I speculated back in October whether Mann, a loser and a liar, would also prove a scofflaw and a deadbeat. Yes, he is.*

        Surely not.

        • studentb says:

          He deserves 2 Nobels. Greta should get 1. Gavin another 1.
          I deserve 1 for trying to educate the illiterate here.

          • Swenson says:

            studentb,

            You must mean the Ignoble Prize.

            This from the Director of the Nobel Institute

            *1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

            2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

            3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.*

            . . . And more.

            You may award yourself a prize if you wish. Just like Michael Mann. Are you also a loser, a liar, a scofflaw and a deadbeat?

          • Svante says:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

            The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”

          • studentb says:

            “Are you also a loser, a liar, a scofflaw and a deadbeat?”
            Now you are sounding like my ex.

          • studentb says:

            Speaking of awards, I believe the denialists here only managed to find a prize out of a cereal packet as the sum total of their accomplishments.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports, with a personalized certificate for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC ”

            You forgot to include John Christy of UAH in the share. He served as both a Lead Author and a reviewer. John is at least 1000 times the better climate scientist than Mann, and I apologize to John for mentioning his good name in the same sentence as that ratbag Mann.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        student…”Both will eventually receive well deserved nobel prizes.”

        And if there is justice, both can admire them in their jail cells.

  44. ren says:

    A tropical storm is developing in the Atlantic (12N, 40W).

  45. Nate says:

    Interesting opinion piece comparing US to Lebanon, where everything became political, and led to inept government and the explosion.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/opinion/trump-beirut-politics.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    “But a society, and certainly a democracy, eventually dies when everything becomes politics. Governance gets strangled by it. Indeed, it was reportedly the failure of the corrupt Lebanese courts to act as guardians of the common good and order the removal of the explosives from the port — as the port authorities had requested years ago — that paved the way for the explosion.

    ‘For a healthy politics to flourish it needs reference points outside itself — reference points of truth and a conception of the common good,’ explained the Hebrew University religious philosopher Moshe Halbertal. ‘When everything becomes political, that is the end of politics.’

    To put it differently, when everything is politics, it means that everything is just about power. There is no center, there are only sides; there’s no truth, there are only versions; there are no facts, there’s only a contest of wills.

    If you believe that climate change is real, it must be because someone paid you off with a research grant. If you believe the president committed an impeachable offense trying to enlist the president of Ukraine to undermine Joe Biden, it’s only because you want power for your party.”

    And

    “The other day Trump told a G.O.P. audience in Cleveland that, if Biden won, he would ‘hurt the Bible, hurt God. He’s against God, he’s against guns, he’s against energy, our kind of energy.’

    Our kind of energy?

    Yup, it turns out there is now Republican energy — oil, gas and coal — and Democratic energy — wind, solar and hydro. And if you believe in oil, gas and coal, you are also supposed to oppose abortion and face masks. And if you believe in solar, wind and hydro, you are presumed to be pro-abortion rights and pro-face mask. This kind of thinking, in the extreme, is what destroyed Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen and is increasingly eating away at Israel.”

    • ClintR says:

      It all goes back to whether or not people want reality. Many do not want reality, because they have failed to use their time on Earth wisely. They have chosen to be losers, so they hate winners. You don’t get far in life by ignoring reality.

      You can see it right here on this blog.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      I’ll say. There are people on this blog who think if you separate three plates by 1mm, the middle plate spontaneously warms by 46 K.

    • Entropic man says:

      +1

    • ClintR says:

      The intrusion of politics is especially noticed in science these days.

      When NASA was started, it was about 95% science and 5% politics. Today, NASA is 95% politics and 5% science.

      • Nate says:

        You are missing the point of the article.

        Science and medicine and facts in general are being turned political by politicians and their teams of supporters.

        It is very represented here on this blog. Whether its climate science, or mask wearing, or specific drugs.

        • ClintR says:

          No, I’m agreeing. Politics has corrupted science. It is politics driven by false religions that attempt to pervert reality. That’s why you can’t admit that something that cannot rotate about its axis is not rotating about its axis. You can’t leave your cult.

          • Nate says:

            “No, I’m agreeing. Politics has corrupted science.”

            So heat transfer physics, which hasnt changed much in 100 years, has somehow recently been corrupted by politics????

            Atmospheric physics, whose basic facts havnt changed in 60 y, has somehow recently been corrupted by politics???

            Planetary motion, whose basic facts have been known for > 100 y, has just now been corrupted by politics??

            Not at all.

            However your side has recently decided that these sciences and institutions are somehow recently corrupted, and to look at even old, well established facts through a political lens.

          • ClintR says:

            Exactly, politics has corrupted science. It is politics driven by false religions that attempt to pervert reality.

            That’s why you can’t admit that something that cannot rotate about its axis is not rotating about its axis. Let’s see if you can admit that the wooden horse bolted to the edge of the merry-go-round is not rotating about its axis. Can you admit to that reality?

            No, you can’t because that would be admitting that the horse is “orbiting” but no “rotating”. And that would be the same motion as Moon.

            You can’t leave your cult.

          • Svante says:

            What do you think would happen if you left your cult ClintR?

          • ClintR says:

            Cults don’t allow members who think for themselves and can recognize reality.

            So no cult would accept people like me.

      • Nate says:

        Not to mention heat transfer, astronomy, and atmospheric physics.

        There is no intrinsic political divide on these topics. But on this blog there is.

        And its bizarre.

        • ClintR says:

          Agreed.

          Feynman called it “cargo cult science”. When you avoid, deny, or attempt to pervert reality, you’re into cult worship.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          Physical facts simply are, whether people choose to accept them or not. People are free to believe that climatology is science, or that the introduction of CO2 into a mixture of gases results in a change to the basic laws of physics. Energy where no energy was before. Additional heating without additional heat. Cargo cult science.

          At the helm is a man described as a loser, liar, scofflaw and deadbeat. You are welcome to him.

          • bobdroege says:

            No, 2 watt bulb, the energy comes from the Sun, stupid, and is restricted from leaving the earth’s atmosphere by the CO2, so the energy stays.

            The surface temperature goes up as a result.

            No change in the basic laws of physics which you are eternally unaware of.

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            Ah. I see. High temperatures in Death Valley – alarmist one way insulator CO2 physics.

            Freezing temperatures in Death Valley – alarmist one way insulator CO2 physics.

            Highest temperatures on Earth – alarmist one way insulator CO2 physics.

            Lowest temperatures on Earth – one way insulator alarmist CO2 physics. Not to mention 4 km of ice overlaying fossilised trees in Antarctic – too much or too little CO2, do you think?

            Combined with your magical self heating/cooling Lego blocks, if you are trying for complete idiocy, you are making great progress.

          • bobdroege says:

            Svenson,

            I wasn’t talking about the temperature of individual locations.

            I was telling you there was no magical creation of energy, just that CO2 restricts the energy from leaving, so the surface must heat up as a result due to the continued input of energy from the Sun.

            You know Antarctica wasn’t always at the south pole.

            Just more stupid.

          • Nate says:

            Whether his name is Swenson or Amazed or Mike Flynn, we can count on him to be our straw man specialist.

            To constantly bring up abilities that no one is claiming CO2 has, and make fun of these capabilities.

            He does this because he refuses to learn the actual GHE theory and is content to remain ignorant.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…just that CO2 restricts the energy from leaving”

            Total OLR has increased.

          • bobdroege says:

            That’s right dumbass,

            Because the system has warmed up due to the increased CO2 and the TOA is higher, therefore a larger area that is radiating to space.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So the increased CO2 has reduced the total OLR, in order to cause warming, which has resulted in increased OLR. Typical of blob not to see the problem with that…

          • bobdroege says:

            I don’t see a problem with that argument, but you are too stupid to understand what is going on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You don’t see a problem with total OLR needing to both increase and decrease at the same time?

          • bobdroege says:

            No dumbass,

            First it decreases as CO2 increases, then it increases to restore the balance.

            Dumbass

            Not at the same time

            Dumbass

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Except that isn’t what has happened, blob. Over time, the total OLR has not decreased then increased. It has just followed global temperatures.

          • bobdroege says:

            Which means it decreased then increased then decreased then increased and so on and so forth.

            You are mistaking short term variation for the long term trend.

          • bobdroege says:

            And one more thing,

            Is it increasing and decreasing at the same time or is it following the global temperature trend.

            Stick to one argument dumbass.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, it means that over time it has just followed global temperatures. Exactly as if there were no enhanced GHE in operation.

          • bobdroege says:

            Except that it is the enhance greenhouse effect causing the temperature to go up.

            Dumbass sky dragon slayer.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Obviously not, blob, as total OLR has increased, along with the temperatures.

          • bobdroege says:

            Obviously the temperature has had to have gone up to drive the increase in OLR.

            What caused that?

            Remember CO2 only blocks part of the OLR spectrum,

            dumbass

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “First it decreases as CO2 increases, then it increases to restore the balance.”

            Your words, blob. Except the total OLR did not decrease.

          • bobdroege says:

            Dumbass,

            You just said it did just that

            “No, it means that over time it has just followed global temperatures. ”

            Global temperatures have gone up and down, dumbass.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Over time, total OLR should not be tracking global temperatures. If the enhanced GHE is supposedly the cause of the observed warming, total OLR should have decreased. Or at least, stayed level.

          • bobdroege says:

            DRMEPTY,

            You don’t know what you are babbling about.

            Read this

            https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10293

            OLR is linear with temperature because the enhanced greenhouse effect is dominated by the effect of what gas?

            That’s right, it’s not CO2.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob, it’s really quite simple.

            You said, “…just that CO2 restricts the energy from leaving”

            Yet the total OLR has increased.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yes I said that

            It is true that CO2 restricts the OLR from leaving, so the temperature increases so there is more OLR leaving, all in accordance with the enhanced greenhouse effect, what part do you not understand?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            There is no part where the total OLR is restricted from leaving, because it is observed to have increased.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR Empty,

            That is incorrect

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation#/media/File:Spectral_OLR.png

            See the big ass notch?

            No of course not

            “A man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest”

            Simon and Garfunkel

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Yeah, we agree that the total has increased, but that doesn’t mean that part of the out going long wave is blocked by CO2 and H2O, hence the notch I showed you.

            And which is what you claimed

            “There is no part where the total OLR is restricted from leaving, because it is observed to have increased.”

            Part of the total is restricted from leaving.

            You still don’t understand.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Total OLR is what is relevant to the energy imbalance, blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY

            So you agree that there is an energy imbalance?

            Next question

            What has caused the energy imbalance?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Theoretically there could be one. A change in the amount of the ASR due to differences in cloud cover, is one possibility.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            “Theoretically there could be one.”

            I thought you said there was an energy imabalance.

            “Total OLR is what is relevant to the energy imbalance, ”

            And you say it could be the iris effect.

            That one has been debunked.

            Got any more theories you dug out of the trash?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, blob. You are starting to bore me now.

  46. Scott R says:

    Wow are you guys watching the ENSO region?

    Region 1+2 is 2.117 c below baseline.

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

    Region 3 is 0.549 c below baseline.

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png

    And finally region 4 is dropping now .311 below baseline AS sunspot activity increases in the NH of the sun.

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png

    In the meantime, Greenland started adding mass already.

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

    • ClintR says:

      How long before we get links to “papers” claiming AGW causes cold oceans?

    • Svante says:

      Scott R says:
      “Wow are you guys watching the ENSO region?”
      Not me, it’s just a short term oscillation.

      “In the meantime, Greenland started adding mass already.”
      Your data is incomplete, you missed the fine print:

      This is known as the surface mass balance. It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.

      • Scott R says:

        Svante,

        Well, you are correct that it is a short term oscillation. The sun causes the ENSO region to cycle on 3.6, 11, 42 year cycles.

        As for Greenland, as I’ve said many times, I have no concerns about glaciers calving off icebergs into the ocean. This is the normal process. If that ever stopped happening, we would go into a period of glaciation. The speed of which that is happening depends on how much snow is building on Greenland, and the AMO.

    • studentb says:

      Wishin’ hopin’ and prayin’ for a morsel of good news (for denialists). Pathetic

    • barry says:

      Well, seeing as you’re excited I had a look at various institutes monitoring ENSO.

      Ge whillikers, it looks like a la Nina is brewing.

      Incredible stuff. We should throw a party or something.

    • barry says:

      OMG, it looks like a la Nina is brewing.

      Incredible stuff. We should throw a party or something.

  47. Doris Weizendanger says:

    For Scott,
    shows total mass changes to Greenland and Antarctica, since 2002:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

    • Swenson says:

      Doris,

      This is the from the same alarmists who said –

      “About half the light reaching Earth’s atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases and radiated back toward the surface.”

      Very clever. 90% of the heat radiated from the Earth is returned by greenhouse gases? Anything less than 100% results in cooling, doesn’t it? This lot are about as bright as the nitwit from the NSF who claimed that melting ice shelfs raised sea levels. Archimedes who?

      In case you are really dimwitted, Archimedes was a Greek who discovered Archimedes Principle. Alarmists ignore such trifles. It gets in the way of their delusions.

    • Scott R says:

      Doris,

      What you are seeing there is an accumulation of departures from a cherry picked average. Neither Greenland or Antarctica is losing ice directly from the ice sheet. These places do not ever go above 0 deg C. The rate of snow fall does change over time and so does the discharge at the ocean. Temperatures in the north Atlantic, Southern ocean also influence this.

      • Svante says:

        The ice sheets gain in the middle and lose around the edges.
        The danger is melting from below, where increasingly warm oceans can get at it. When these supports are gone the ice flow rate can increase.

        • Scott R says:

          I don’t see any danger with that Svante. Sorry. If that melt ever stops we will face a real danger.

          • Svante says:

            The danger is sea level rise.

            The rate of sea level rise has also increased over time. Between 1900 and 1990 studies show that sea level rose between 1.2 millimeters and 1.7 millimeters per year on average. By 2000, that rate had increased to about 3.2 millimeters per year and the rate in 2016 is estimated at 3.4 millimeters per year.

            https://tinyurl.com/yd639pjw

          • bdgwx says:

            How would stable ocean levels be more of a concern than rising ocean levels?

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    dremt…”Theres an interesting article on how the equation is misused, here:

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math

    Dremt…I have been interested in that equation for a while and it is not meant to measure heat transfer. It is meant to measure heat loss due to radiation to an atmosphere in which a radiating body is surrounded.

    The author presents the equation as Q = sigma.(T^4hot – T^4 cold) where Q is the heat transferred via radiation. He is quite right to claim it is wrong. If you rewrite it as:
    Q = sigma.T^4hot – sigma.T^4cold it suggests the heat transferred is the difference between the radiations emitted by each body, which is sheer nonsense.

    If you look here, about halfway down the page you’ll see the actual meaning of the equation:

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

    ****

    Net Radiation Loss Rate

    If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

    q = e.sigma (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah

    where

    q = heat loss rate due to radiation
    Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
    Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
    Ah = area of the hot object (m2)

    ****

    This becomes important when trying to calculate the rate of heat loss. With AGW, one of the theories is that CO2 slows down the rate of surface heat loss. However, as seen above, the rate of heat loss is affected by Tcold, and CO2 as a trace gas with 0.04% mass percent cannot determine Tcold. It is controlled by nitrogen and oxygen which account for 99% of the mass percent.

    This makes sense. If you have a mass at temperature 50C radiating to a room at 20C, you can cause the mass to cool faster by increasing the temperature gradient T^4hot – T^4cold. That means the closer the room temperature gets to 50C, the slower the mass will cool, so if Troom = Tmass, the mass stops cooling. If Troom > Tmass. the mass starts warming.

    • studentb says:

      Anybody feeling deja vu?
      The same old tired arguments, devoid of correct physics, by armchair experts with their cereal packet prizes pinned to the walls.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Points Never Actually Refuted but Claimed to be Refuted A Thousand Times (PNARCRATTs)

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          This is why you don’t refute anything. You just scan for keywords then argue against a straw man based on those keywords. He did say the words “trace gas” but he is not arguing the “trace gas argument”.

          • bobdroege says:

            There are more than one trace gas argument and he is making one of the more stupid ones.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante linked to the “trace gas argument” he was referring to, and it is not the argument Gordon is making. Just another fact for you to ignore.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon makes a lot of stupid arguments, in this case he is making more than one.

            One of the ones he is making here is that he is treating the atmosphere as a blackbody.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s it, just ignore it and move on to some other point.

          • bobdroege says:

            Well I would acknowledge any valid arguments made by you or Gordon.

            So far zilch.

            The moon still turns the green plates still makes a temperature increase in the blue plate, greenhouse gases still make the surface of the earth warmer, etc.

            And Gordon still makes the argument that CO2 can’t heat the atmosphere because it is a trace gas.

            So you’re a loser on that argument as well.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob lies through his teeth, as usual.

          • bobdroege says:

            Prove it bitch.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …said every guilty man, ever…

          • bobdroege says:

            Says the dumbass who can’t support any of his arguments.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            CO2 as a trace gas with 0.04% mass percent cannot determine Tcold.

            I wonder who said that

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Still responding…

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY

            Can’t figure out when you have lost the argument?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The “trace gas argument” is: CO2 is a trace gas, so cannot cause warming.

            “Cannot cause warming” does not equal “cannot determine Tcold”.

            You are taking one sentence out of full context.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Here is the full context then

            “This becomes important when trying to calculate the rate of heat loss. With AGW, one of the theories is that CO2 slows down the rate of surface heat loss. However, as seen above, the rate of heat loss is affected by Tcold, and CO2 as a trace gas with 0.04% mass percent cannot determine Tcold.”

            There it is in full, the trace gas argument the way Gordon is making it extends to AGW or warming.

            So there DR EMPTY, you lose again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit, blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY answers with a non-sequitur.

            Not that I expected a rational argument from him.

            He couldn’t fashion one.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            OK, blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            Now DR EMPTY is counting again, what is this, Sesame Street?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            OK, blob.

    • Swenson says:

      “Newton’s law of cooling (or heating) states that the temperature of a body changes at a rate proportional to the difference in temperature between the body and its surroundings”

      Nothing about CO2, GHE, trace gases – nothing.

      Alarmists are stupid.

  49. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Swenson,
    This is from the same alarmists who said….

    The data came from NASA satellites. NASA, the folks who recently landed a robotic rover on Mars. Nitwits?

    From the link,
    Data from NASA’s GRACE and GRACE Follow-On satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower chart) have been losing mass since 2002. The GRACE mission concluded science operations in June 2017.

    GRACE Follow-On began data collection in June 2018 and is now continuing the mass change data record for both ice sheets. This data record includes the latest data processing improvements and is continually updated as more data are collected (with a lag of up to two months).

  50. Ed says:

    Dr Spencer, In view of all this, why is it warmer at the bottom of a mountain than at the top (ignoring wind effects)?

    • E. Swanson says:

      Ed, Your claim may be true for large differences in altitude, but for smaller differences (perhaps a few thousand feet), one experiences the “mountain-valley effect”. In winter, when winds are light, the air cools by radiation at night and sinks into the valleys, similar to the way water flows downhill. In the morning, the temperature will be lower at the bottom of the valley compared with higher up the mountain.

      • Swenson says:

        Swannie,

        So the GHE doesn’t work at night? Or doesn’t the ground radiate during the day? How come the ground cools as the sun goes past its highest point?

        You aren’t making much sense.

      • Ed says:

        Thanks for the reply. I’m not talking about convection-related temperature differences. If I walk up a 2000 foot mountain/hill, it’s cooler at the top than at the bottom. The only difference appears to be in air pressure. I genuinely would like an answer to this question.

        • bdgwx says:

          It’s the pressure difference. Gases at lower pressure have lower temperatures. The more interesting question is why does pressure decrease with height. There a few factors in play here but the primary reason is gravity. If Earth were more massive the change in pressure (and consequently temperature as well) with respect to height would be more dramatic. Vice versa for a less massive Earth.

  51. Harves says:

    Nate apparently arguing against politicising everything by … providing half a dozen anti-Trump examples. Totally blind to his own bias and hypocrisy. You just couldnt make this up.

    • Nate says:

      Well, sorry, but the President is the politicizer in chief.

      There just are very few topics that the current President has not tried to politicize.

      Whether it is the military, promotions of individual soldiers, the intelligence agencies, individual corporations, or sports, he will politicize them like no previous President has.

      This year, of course, issues in medicine and public health, that should be purely science/fact based, but he has led their politicization.

      Promoting an unproven drug, hydroxychloroquine.
      Mask wearing.
      Children’s infectiousness.

  52. Scott R says:

    Where is Bindidon today? I would love for him to explain to me how it is possible for 4 gigatons of snow to be added to Greenland in early August.

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

    This is also the earliest the EGP station has gone below -20c.

    http://promice.org/WeatherArchive.html?promiceStationStationid=211&stationid=211

    • Svante says:

      And here’s the total mass balance again:
      https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

      • Scott R says:

        Svante,

        What you are seeing there is an accumulation of departures from a cherry picked average. Neither Greenland or Antarctica is losing ice directly from the ice sheet. These places do not ever go above 0 deg C. The rate of snow fall does change over time and so does the discharge at the ocean. Temperatures in the north Atlantic, Southern ocean also influence this.

    • bdgwx says:

      This should also put things into context. From the same source…

      http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/

      • Scott R says:

        Not really. “All changes given relative to 2002.” It’s another departure from an average map, where the average is a really big mass gain… and we currently face a less big but still positive accumulation of mass. Even more disturbing is the chart below where they sum up the loss departures from average to make it look like we are losing tons of ice when the opposite is true.

        • bdgwx says:

          Yes really. Over a 17 year period Greenland has lost 4000 gigatons of snow/ice total mass. And it was the graph at the bottom I wanted you to focus on. That is the cummulative mass change since 2002. It is not a departure from normal. It is literally showing permanent mass loss contributing to 10mm of sea level rise.

  53. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Scott,
    the scatter plot you referenced, where a value fell to – 21 C on August 9, shows the daily average temperature for each day of the year at a given station. 365 measurements per year, roughly 30 measurements per month.

    Because the graph is not comparing one year to another, there is no way of knowing if the -20 C reading came earlier or later than usual.

    • Scott R says:

      Doris,

      You can change the chart so that it will show 4+ years of data. Hold the cursor over each data point. You can see that it has never been this cold this early there. Admittedly, it is a very short dataset however. Many of the Greenland datasets (some which have run for much longer) hit all time cold temperatures over the last couple of years.

      You can pull the max min temperatures for each Greenland climate location here and see that many recorded their coldest temperatures very recently, like 2019.

      http://promice.org/WeatherArchive.html?promiceStationStationid=122&stationid=122

  54. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Sorry about that. I thought you had misunderstood the scatter plot.

  55. Rob Mitchell says:

    Speaking of mass balance of snow and ice, anybody ever check out what is going on in Greenland? Here it is, August 2020 and Greenland ice mass is now gaining!

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20200810.png

    Maybe this is why we have not heard anything in the news media about Greenland melting away this year.

    • bdgwx says:

      It’s not unusual to have mass gains in August.

      • Scott R says:

        bdgwx,

        We can see that this data point is above the light gray area indicating that this type of occurrence is probably close to the 2nd standard deviation considering the 1981-2010 average period. Only 6.7% of the data points are removed. (high and low) It is impossible to say if it is a record, we don’t have enough information.

        • bdgwx says:

          Yeah. It probably is a 2 SD excursion. We expect on average 9 of those to the high side per year. Even a 3 SD excursion would be expected once every 2 years. And it’s still only the SMB. It’s NOT the total mass change.

    • bdgwx says:

      8/12 had an even larger SMB spike…around +6 gigatons. This brings the cummulative YTD SMB figure inline with the 1981-2010 average.

  56. Rob Mitchell says:

    Sorry Scott R, I just noticed you already mentioned that.

  57. Rob Mitchell says:

    So, will the global warming alarmists just call this an anomaly, or just noise? If so, then why can’t we call a year with excessive melt in Greenland an anomaly, or noise?

    • bdgwx says:

      It’s 2 days of gains. 2 days is not even remotely the same as 365 days nevermind the 18 year record. You’re own source even says that despite the 4 gigaton gain in recent days the seasonal ablation is STILL more than the 1981-2010 average. A 4 GT gain is but a drop in the bucket compared to the net 4000 GT loss since 2002. You tell us. Is a variation of 4 against the backdrop of 4000 noise or have we entered into a new era of long term mass gains and cooling planet?

      • bdgwx says:

        Oh…and BTW…that 4 gigaton gain does NOT include a primary source of mass loss. It is only the surface mass balance (SMB) change. A large portion of the losses occur when glaciers calve. That loss is not included in the SMB figure. In fact, August is one of the months in which the total loss is most acute. And although we don’t yet have data for August 2020 in terms of total mass change it is very likely that Greenland was still losing mass as the SMB jumped to +4 gigatons.

      • ClintR says:

        All that distortion by bdgwx just to cover up for the 7 GT spike above average.

        They’re soooo desperate….

        • bdgwx says:

          I’m not distorting or covering anything up. I fully acknowledge the SMB gains over the last 2 days. I even think the 8/10 gain is likely a +2 SD (or higher) excursion and possibly even record setting. The data is what it is.

          • ClintR says:

            Sorry bdgwx, but you were attempting to distort reality again. That’s why you compared the 18 year loss with the two day gain. You were trying to reduce the two day gain to meaningless.

            Quit trying to deny that you deny reality. You still haven’t admitted that something that cannot rotate about its axis is not rotating about its axis. You’ve got a long way to go.

            Also, it’s snowing again on the ice sheet….

  58. bobdroege says:

    Off Topic,

    But go

    Kamala Harris

  59. Doris Weizendanger says:

    At last, a VP candidate who is younger than I am.

    Go Kamala!

  60. Swenson says:

    All this wishful thinking about GRACE readings being translated into ice mass measurements is about as realistic as dimwitted NASA employees claiming to measure global sea level to 0.1 mm. That is less than the thickness of a human hair!

    There are always people gullible enough to believe anything.

  61. Eben says:

    It is funny to watch the commies in here no to be able to contain themselves and celebrate VP pick on the weather blog

  62. Rob Mitchell says:

    More important than the quick 4 GT gain in Greenland is the Acc. SMB for this year. It had been below average for most of this year because of a relatively dry season, but now the Acc. SMB is very close to the 1981-2010 mean in August. I believe the global warming alarmists have been pushing a narrative that future years will resemble the 2011-2012 Acc. SMB minimum. I think it is more of a multi-decadal cycle than a perpetual melting away due to human-caused global warming. After all, wasn’t there a significant warming event in the Northern Hemisphere during the early 20th Century?

    • bdgwx says:

      FWIW…I don’t think 2012 style losses will be typical until 2050. 2012 was an anomalous year in most respects. That was the year of the raging Arctic Dipole Anomaly followed by the Great Arctic Cyclone in August.

    • bdgwx says:

      Just published yesterday…

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2

      The Greenland Ice Sheet is losing mass at accelerated rates in the 21st century, making it the largest single contributor to rising sea levels. Faster flow of outlet glaciers has substantially contributed to this loss, with the cause of speedup, and potential for future change, uncertain. Here we combine more than three decades of remotely sensed observational products of outlet glacier velocity, elevation, and front position changes over the full ice sheet. We compare decadal variability in discharge and calving front position and find that increased glacier discharge was due almost entirely to the retreat of glacier fronts, rather than inland ice sheet processes, with a remarkably consistent speedup of 4–5% per km of retreat across the ice sheet. We show that widespread retreat between 2000 and 2005 resulted in a step-increase in discharge and a switch to a new dynamic state of sustained mass loss that would persist even under a decline in surface melt.

  63. bdgwx says:

    Richard said: See Query Results for year 2020 (Total) e.g. RCP 6.0 2.480 W.m2, RCP 8.5 2.665 W.m2. These are wildly greater numbers than the last actual 0.6 W.m2 TOA EI observation i.e. theory vs actual does NOT comport.

    You’re definitely conflating EEI and ERF here. The +0.6 W/m^2 figure is the EEI. The 2.48 or 2.67 W/m^2 figures are the ERF. They are NOT the same thing. They are NOT supposed to be equal.

    Also, the RCPs are not observations. They are what-if scenarios used to communicate to the public things in a if X then Y format. Nobody knows which RCP is realistic because no one can predict human behavior. All we can do is make an educated guess as to which RCP humans will choose. I think RCP4.5 will end up being the scenario that best represents what humans decide.

    • ClintR says:

      bdgwx persists with the nonsense: “The +0.6 W/m^2 figure is the EEI.”

      bdgwx, the “+0.6 W/m^2” is bogus. It has been explained to you. You don’t have a clue about Earth’s “energy budget”, yet you continue spreading your nonsense.

      Why do you run from reality?

    • bdgwx says:

      Richard said: The problem with this is that the EEI was a relatively constant +0.65 W.m2 for some time. Stephens et al’s period was 2000 2010. So the implication is that your ERF remained a constant 2.3 W.m2 from 2000 – 2010 because there was little or no temperature change over that decade.

      First…per Cheng 2020 OHC rose about 100 ZJ. Even though there was little change in the atmospheric temperature during this time the Earth still accumulated energy.

      Second…the only way I can see EEI and ERF remaining unchanged simultaneously is if the Earth accumulated energy in a manner that did not cause a temperature increase. The only way to store energy without increasing temperature is through the enthalpy of fusion. In other words, the EEI was used to melt snow/ice. Interetingly 2000 was the period in which snow/ice mass loss had become most acute. So maybe there is a link there. I don’t know…I’ll have to research that some more.

      Anyway…EEI has been relatively constant for a few decades now while broadly speaking ERF and T have been increasing. There is nothing unusual about this.

      • Ball4 says:

        Some research for bdgwx noted by Loeb 2018 p.904 annual mean uptake of earth system thermodynamic internal energy component value: +0.03 +/- 0.01 W/m^2 from ice warming and melt and atmospheric and lithospheric warming for 19712010 (Rhein et al. 2013).

        • Ball4 says:

          …1971 to 2010…

        • bdgwx says:

          That’s not a lot.

        • ClintR says:

          “…noted by Loeb 2018 p.904 annual mean uptake of earth system thermodynamic internal energy component value: +0.03 +/- 0.01 W/m^2…”

          Someone needs to explain to Loeb, et al., that “flux” is NOT “energy”.

          So any “paper” that incorrectly interchanges the two quantities is NOT based on physics. That means it is NOT science, it is nonsense. And any subsequent “paper” that is based on such a “paper” is also nonsense.

      • bdgwx says:

        bdgwx said: The only way to store energy without increasing temperature is through the enthalpy of fusion.

        I should probably be careful when making blanket statements like this. Obvious there are many ways in general to store energy without an increase in temperature. Chemical processes, wind or ocean current speed increases, etc.

    • bdgwx says:

      Richard said: I referred you to Chapter 10. Im challenging you for just ONE microphysics paper from 10.4 i.e. actual physical evidence from the IPCC. Not modeling papers.

      If you got to Google Scholar and search for “air sea parameterization schemes” or “air sea microphysics” you’ll get many hits. Some of these may be listed as first order sources in IPCC AR5 WGI, but it is more likely that they are second, third, etc. citations referenced by the first order citations. The Physical Science Basis is meant as an introductory level summary of the science. Remember, the IPCC does not do original research. They collate the available research and as such we typically find their first order citations to be heavily weighted with summary type publications as well. You’ll likely have to dive deep to find the details you desire. If you can be more specific about your request I might be able to dig these materials up for you.

    • bdgwx says:

      Richard said: In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.

      If LWdown increases more than LWup and all other things remain equal then the surface has to warm. Objects cannot generally accumulate energy without experiencing a temperature increase.

      • Swenson says:

        b . . . ,

        You are right. The surface warms when the sun comes up, cools when the sun goes down, Duh!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”Richard said: In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.”

        The solar LW spectrum is immensely larger than the terrestrial LW spectrum. Furthermore, there will be heating by any LW IR that is hotter than the surface.

        • bdgwx says:

          No it isn’t. SW and LW refer to the point along the spectrum where there is a transition from solar dominance to terrestrial dominance. Generally speaking 4 um is LW. When you see SW we are talking about solar radiation. When you see LW we are talking about terrestrial radiation.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Furthermore, there will be heating by any LW IR that is hotter than the surface.”

            Gordon, EMR is not heat. LW IR is not hot.

            Plot the Planck function curve of the irradiance at the top of the atmosphere from a 6000 K blackbody radius of sun at the Earthsun distance. Plot the Planck function for terrestrial radiation 300K.

            Where the two curves intersect (about 1.3 micron) may be interpreted as the wavelength at which a photon is equally likely to be of solar as of terrestrial origin. And then remember the temperature differences of the sources…

      • Richard C (NZ) says:

        bdgwx (Part 1)

        >’If LWdown increases more than LWup and all other things remain equal then the surface has to warm.”

        The surface is already warming from SW SSR input, that’s the sun to ocean energy transfer. The net LW flux is still outgoing OLR (barring radical changes that completely overcome the LWnet 52 W.m2 OLR, even then terrestrial IR-C is not the bulk ocean heating agent – solar IR-A/B is), LWnet of 51 50 or 49 W.m2 OLR is still a surface cooling flux.

        Your scenario is NOT a LW air to sea energy transfer. It is simply an insulation effect (similar to Minnett’s negligible skin-layer insulation effect). LWnet OLR is still cooling the surface

        • bdgwx says:

          Richard said: The net LW flux is still outgoing OLR (barring radical changes that completely overcome the LWnet 52 W.m2 OLR

          To be pedantic…LWnet is not OLR. OLR is the total broadband LR radiation leaving from TOA. It is approximately 240 W/m^2. LWup-LWdown has no shorthand name in widespread use AFAIK.

          Richard said: LWnet of 51 50 or 49 W.m2 OLR is still a surface cooling flux.

          I think there may be a disconnect with how the word “warming” is used to describe the role of GHGs in the atmosphere. Perhaps this analogy will help clarify things.

          Your home has a furnace and insulation. The furnace is the agent by which energy enters your home and is converted into heat. The insulation augments the furnace by trapping the heat that it makes. If you turn the furnace the temperature in your home will increase. That is the “warming” you are envisioning. But if you then add more insulation without making any changes to the furnace the temperature in your home will increase further. This is the “warming” we are referring to. The insulation will not cause the temperature in your home to increase by itself. But when paired with another source of energy and a mechanism to convert that energy into heat the insulation will augment that configuration resulting in a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be possible. It is the temperature increase by augmentation that is meant when scientist use the word “warming” in the context of the GHE.

          Yes. The surface sheds more heat via LW-up than it receives via LW-down. The same is true for you home. It sheds more heat than it receives from the outside. But just like enhancing the thermal barrier via adding insulation to your home initially creates an energy imbalance inside your home that leads to a rise temperature so too does enhancing the thermal barrier via adding more GHGs to the atmosphere initially creates an energy imbalance inside the geosphere that leads to a rise in temperature.

      • Richard C (NZ) says:

        bwgwx (Part 2, having ton of trouble posting)

        Next problem (see Enlightening Dimming and Brightening (Wild) upthread or look it up): DLR is NOT increasing commensurate with GHG forcing globally or regionally. That’s all in AR5 Chapter 2 Observations Atmosphere. And the observed changes in DLR are an order of magnitude greater than say CO2 at the surface.

        • Richard C (NZ) says:

          bdgwx (Part 3)

          Wang and Liang (2009) (upthread) find 2.2 W.m2/decade DLR change at surface (can be 10 regionally) vs Berkeley labs (upthread) 0.2 W.m2/decade CO2 at surface.

        • Richard C (NZ) says:

          I’m out, comments disappear.

          • bdgwx says:

            The comment section is annoying. Avoid putting the letters D and C together. Be careful about this letter sequence in url links as well. There are some other checks that can cause your comment to get filtered as well. I’m just not what they all are.

  64. barry says:

    That post 2016 global cooling is still just around the corner then.

    The wrongs just keep on wronging.

    But they don’t own it. THAT was predicatable.

  65. Eben says:

    Cooling is just around the corner , small one in few month , big one in few years
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

  66. Rafael Molina Navas, Madrid says:

    Middle of the 90s is the center of ´1980-2010´averaged period … 1/4 of a century ago.
    That would mean app. a global average temperature increase of 0.44×4=1.76 ºC over a century, and +1.41 over the rest of 21st century !!
    Besides:
    “The world’s peatlands will become a large source of greenhouse gases as temperatures rise this century, say scientists.
    Right now, huge amounts of carbon are stored in boggy, often frozen regions stretching across northern parts of the world.
    But much of the permanently frozen land will thaw this century, say experts.
    This will release warming gases at a rate that could be 30-50% greater than previous estimates”.
    Warming world ‘devastating’ for frozen peatlands
    Any optimistic ??

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      rafael…”This will release warming gases at a rate that could be 30-50%”

      30-50% of nothing is still nothing.

      • Rafael Molina Navas, Madrid says:

        Scientists say the loss of ice in Greenland lurched forward again last year, breaking the previous record by 15%.

        ‘Extreme’ ice loss as Greenland smashes record

        A +15% record braking !! … Is that also “nothing”, as 15% of “nothing” ??
        Is not permafrost thawing releasing mainly methane, proved strong green house effect ?
        Do you have any evidence of the contrary ?

  67. Doris Weizendanger says:

    AGW is poorly defined, IMHO.

    Should be: difference between the current global average and what would have been observed had the CO2 level remained at 280 ppm.

    Under that definition, ENSO cycles, solar cycles, etc. would have no bearing.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Dor,
      CO2 level has no significant effect on climate In spite of its being a greenhouse gas. The part of planet temperature increase attributable to humanity is the on-going increase in water vapor resulting primarily (about 96%) from irrigation. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

    • gbaikie says:

      –AGW is poorly defined, IMHO.–
      It’s human effects upon weather since the time of pre-industrial times- or roughly speaking before, before indoor plumbing.

      Some think it started much earlier, some others like after 1950 AD {when it was obvious that US was the global superpower}.
      Some worry about people eating meat {that goes way back}.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”Some think it started much earlier, some others like after 1950 AD ”

        That was just about the time that Eisenhower introduced government funding. He had misgivings about the deed thinking it could be used adversely. He wasn’t even close, it has been seriously abused.

        It probably took till the 1970s before some wisenheimer figured out a way to milk the funding by creating false paradigms. Furthermore, climate model technology would just be getting going in the early 70s with their false prophecies.

    • Nate says:

      “CO2 level has no significant effect on climate ”

      Dan, your analysis does not support such a claim, as we have discussed.

      Therefore you need to stop making it.

      • Ball4 says:

        One commenter’s significant is another commenter’s insignificant. Insignificant change in observable atm. water vapor or liquid water detected in the satellite era, significant change in temperature.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nate,
        You need to take the blinders off. If you would look, perhaps you might understand. When you do, you will know better.

        • Ball4 says:

          Dan, there is no global on-going increase in water vapor as measured in the satellite era. Global atm. WV and liquid water are observed to flatline.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Bal,
            You have not been paying attention.
            Total precipitable water (TPW) i.e. water vapor, is measured using satellite based instrumentation by NASA/RSS and numerical anomalies are reported monthly. Data through July, 2020 is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202007.time_series.txt and will be until about 10 Aug. They change the link every month so after that you will need to change the last digit from 7 to 8. Their home page is at
            http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product . The slope averages about 1.5% per decade and is corroborated by data from NCEP R1 & R2.
            I add the base value of 28.73 to the NASA/RSS anomalies to produce the graphs (Click my name)
            TPW anomaly with reference value of 28.73 added is graphed here thru Feb 2020: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HXX9IJkJWHYZkjyEH85oen3-CXTNEcID

          • Ball4 says:

            Dan, it is you that has not been paying attention & keeping up, that data starts in 1988. The global “vertically integrated water vapor”, or “precipitable water” expressed in mm or equivalently kg m−2 ) reported by RMS is only one component of 3 water phases in the atm., you also need account for liquid water and water ice components of atm. water hydrological cycle available from MODIS et. al. data sources back to 1948 as I noted for you earlier.

            When those data are added in, the total evaporation on Earth is precisely equal to the total precipitation flatlining since 1948. However, more data continues to pour down from observations reducing the uncertainty in figuring out the global water balance which is still high, despite these recent big data amounts. See Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 38993932, 2020.

          • Ball4 says:

            pp. 3899-3932

  68. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Rafael

    A reason for optimism is that things are changing slowly relative to the human lifespan.

    Depending on your age, location and income level, you may never experience any adverse effects from climate change.

  69. Doris Weizendanger says:

    You folks have lost me.
    What does my legacy have to to with a conversation about climate change?

    • Svante says:

      You may think you will be dead before climate risks materialize.
      That doesn’t matter.
      The only thing that matters in the long run is what we leave for our children.
      Everything else is pointless.

      • Eben says:

        Just look how dumb people making future predictions from hundred years ago look today , that’s deluded Svante today.

        • Svante says:

          Not in physics.
          The theory of relativity still stands.
          Unless you agree with Gordon.

          • Eben says:

            Here we go again , scientist wannabe thinks he is Einstein ,
            I have bad news for you , you look dumb today and you will look 100 times dumber 100 years from now.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”The theory of relativity still stands.
            Unless you agree with Gordon”.

            According to Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, the theory of relativity a la Einstein, is not even a theory. It is a collection of thought experiments and assertions that cannot be validated. Essen went so far as to claim that Einstein did not understand measurement.

            Einstein freely admitted that his version of relativity measurement is not much different than the Newtonian version. If you have a particle moving along the x-axis in a positive direction you can calculate its position from x0 by s = vt. If there is a particle moving on a different axis, x’,y’,z’ along the axis x’ you can calculate its position as s’ = x’t. Note that t is the same between each relative motion since some dumb human is using the same clock to measure the relative speeds.

            It is then a matter of relating the motion of the particle in x’,y’, z’ to the relative motion of the particle in x,y,z. No rocket science there. A computer would help because the human brain is not very good with such computations. It is prone to illusion when things get complicated.

            Along comes Einstein with his peculiar definition of time as ‘the hands on a clock’, and arbitrarily redefines s = xt with a multiplier he pulled out of a hat. Einstein’s altered equation is: s = vt(1 – v^2/c^2), so the faster you go wrt the speed of light, c, the smaller time gets and the smaller the distance s gets.

            If v < c, the multiplier gets smaller

            But look what happens in the limit. If v = c, the multiplier in the brackets = 0, therefore time disappears and distance disappears. So as v -> C, at v = c, everything disappears.

            If, v > c, it gets even worse. The multiplier becomes a negative fraction and time becomes negative as does distance. When asked about that, if it meant we could travel back in time, Einstein was quick to claim he did not say that, even though his equation implies it.

            If we had a mass traveling at velocity, v, and v = c, the mass can’t very well suddenly have zero velocity, and the distance it has traveled become null.

            This dumb theory goes so far as to claim that the mass of a human body traveling at a velocity,v, would not age as fast because time has been reduced. The stupidity in the theory is really hilarious since human age based in cell division, not a clock.

            Essen was right, Einstein’s relativity theory has very few applications and it’s not as much a theory as a collection of speculations such as time dilating and distances shortening.

            I’m sticking with Newton.

          • Nate says:

            At least Gordon is consistent in his appeal to the authority of cranks.

          • studentb says:

            I believe Gordon went to school with him.

            (Isaac Newton born in 1642 died in 1727)

      • Swenson says:

        Svante,

        The only thing that matters is whatever you choose. It always seems like the right thing at the time, otherwise you wouldn’t choose it, would you?

        Trying to impose your choices on others might not work out so well for you.

    • ClintR says:

      Doris, you appear to be new here, as I am. You will quickly learn that Svante is a “pajama-boy-troll” who comments here all day long. His comments are usually short, failed attempts to be clever. He has nothing to offer, in the way of science. He tries to slur Skeptics, unsuccessfully.

      He’s quite harmless.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      doris…”What does my legacy have to to with a conversation about climate change?”

      Just ignore adverse comments from the alarmist peanut gallery and post.

  70. Gordon Robertson says:

    bobd …”if you remove that cooling mechanism by pulling the blocks apart, the central block has to warm because it is still being heated and can no longer cool by conduction”.

    Good on you mate, you’ve almost got it. Now apply that to Swannie’s experiment where he has a heated blue plate radiating freely on both sides in a vacuum. He then raises the green plate so it’s right in front of the BP on one side and that blocks the BPs radiation on that side. The GP slows down the BPs ability to dissipate heat so what happens, it warms!!

    Swannie thinks it warms because the cooler GP is transferring heat to it.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “…if you remove that cooling mechanism by pulling the blocks apart, the central block has to warm because it is still being heated and can no longer cool by conduction”

      It just cools by radiation, instead. Separating three identical objects does not make the middle object rise in temperature. Where in the real world do you see such a thing happen?

      • bobdroege says:

        At the Nuclear Power Plant I used to work at for one.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Sure, blob. Whatever you say.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            You say

            “It just cools by radiation, instead.”

            I am sure you can demonstrate that the rates of cooling by conduction and radiation would be the same using valid heat transfer equations?

            Can you show the equations are the same or equivalent?

            Maybe they are different and the energy/heat flows would be different.

            Of course they are with the plates together you have heat flow, but with them apart you have energy flow, so different equation would be used.

            Actually we have already shown the energy/heat flows to be different, therefore the temperatures have to be different.

            You lost again

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            At 244 K…244 K…244 K, upon separation, the radiative heat transfer equation between the plates gives a result of zero. Equilibrium reached, end of story.

          • ClintR says:

            Perfect, DREMT!

            Beat bob over the head with his bogus equation.

            Brilliant.

          • bobdroege says:

            Do we have to do this again DR EMPTY

            244, 244, 244 is not at equilibrium.

            It’s not even an equilibrium problem, it’s a steady state problem.

            That’s the problem, you are not even in the right classroom.

            And ClintR is humping your leg.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The wriggling begins…

          • ClintR says:

            bob fails the physics so he tries some semantics.

            Only to fail again….

          • Svante says:

            Why don’t you patent your heater that is not hot.
            400 W between plates of the same temperature.
            Brilliant!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I literally just said it was zero, Svante.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY and ClintR the leg humper

            I asked

            Can you show the equations are the same or equivalent?

            Well can you show your math?

            Can you show your heat flows balance, in and out?

            If not I marks a zero on your paper

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The wriggling continues.

          • ClintR says:

            bob, you keep forgetting you never get the physics correct.

            All we get from you is your juvenile name-calling and obscenities.

            Your only value here is to represent the bottom of the barrel of Warmists.

            You’re doing that job quite well.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            So you are claiming that the dog ClintR ate your homework?

            Here you go

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

            The source of the so called bogus equations.

            Use them and recalculate.

            Oh fudge, you didn’t calculate in the first place, you just declare your answer correct, who the fudge are you, the Pope.

            You position is more and more that of a religion, the Sky Dragon Slayer Religion.

            Looks like you need an intervention.

            Maybe your local community college could help.

            Start with Science For Idiots I.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR the name caller is complaining about being called names again.

            Whine Whine Wine you Whiney Little Winey Bitch.

          • ClintR says:

            No bob, I’m not complaining about your lack of culture. I’m just acknowledging it. People need to see what happens when others try to live a life avoiding reality. It’s not a pretty site, as you well demonstrate.

            Linking to the correct Stefan-Boltzmann equation won’t help your attempted perversion of physics. In fact, the bogus equation does not even appear at that link. And, you won’t find the bogus equation in any legitimate physics book. That should tell you that it’s BOGUS.

            You tried this same trick when I tried to teach you gravity cannot create a torque. You went to wikipedia for a bunch of formulas that you could not correctly apply to the situation. You can’t accept reality, so you must attempt to pervert it. Others need to see how blog terrorists operate.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            Maybe you would find it in a heat transfer textbook like this

            Heat and Mass Transfer, Yunus A. Cengel and Afshin J. Ghajar, 4th Edition

            here is the full equation, and for this problem we are using emissivities of one and view factors of one, so the true equation reduces to the one you call bogus.

            https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4b617b05d6953b0493088b50e66af28622500f27

            You should quit while you are behind.

            And you totally blew the gravity torque bit, you couldn’t have been more wrong.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#:~:text=Earth's%20rotation%20is%20slowing%20slightly,is%20adjusted%20by%20leap%20seconds.

          • ClintR says:

            It’s too bad there’s no way we could bet on this, bob.

            But, you have no money. And, you have no character, so you can’t be trusted.

            If only….

          • bobdroege says:

            CLintR,

            If we could agree on a suitable referee, you would lose.

            Just like if you had a sawbuck and Chuck Norris has a sawbuck, who has the most money?

            Well you don’t have any money, Chuck has it all.

            If only…………..

            You could find some reputable cites to support your case.

            Nope your case is bogus.

          • ClintR says:

            bob, you can fool yourself, but I’m not sure Snowflake would be fooled by your nonsense.

            You deny reality. You believe the wooden horse, bolted to the outer edge of a MGR, is rotating about its axis. You have to believe that to support your false believe that Moon is rotating about its axis.

            You deny reality. You ignore the NASA astronaut video that verifies the experiments and proofs of Galileo and Newton.

            You deny reality. Trying to argue that the bogus equation is not bogus, you offer as proof, the bogus equation!

            You deny reality. Trying to argue that gravity can create a torque, you provide a link discussing Earth’s rotation!

            You live in your own world of make-believe. You have zero concept of reality.

          • Nate says:

            “At 244 K…244 K…244 K, upon separation, the radiative heat transfer equation between the plates gives a result of zero. Equilibrium reached, end of story.”

            You see, if we are at equilibrium, all Ts are equal.

            If all Ts are equal then Qdot = 0.

            If Qdot = 0 and all Ts are equal, we must be at equilibrium.

            And if we are at equilibrium then all Ts are equal…

            And what could possibly be wrong with that?

            Other than the universe suddenly becoming really really boring…

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            You offer the video on the Moon of the astronaut demonstrating that objects in a vacuum fall at the same rate as proof that gravity can not put a torque on an object.

            That gets the ATFQ!

            It’s a non-sequitur, that video has nothing to do with the question.

            I posted the article on the earth’e spin to show that the gravity of the Moon is putting a torque on the Earth, causing the Earth’s rate of rotation to slow down.

            You don’t grasp that concept, poor ClintR.

            You won’t acknowledge that I have posted evidence that there are two axis with respect to the Moon, one it rotates around and one it orbits around and the two axes are not parallel, so it’s you who are denying reality. Reality, you know, actual observations.

            You need to do more than just claim that the heat transfer equation is bogus. Try reading some physics or heat transfer textbooks, you gotta start somewhere. You have to learn some physics from reputable sources instead of making shit up to conform with your religious views.

          • ClintR says:

            That’s not the way it works, bob.

            A wikipedia source is not “proof” of anything, especially when I can provide a clear example to refute.

            Your problem is that wikipedia is your “bible”, and reality is “heresy”. You’re unable to leave your cult.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            I’ll take wikipedia any day over the likes of you.

            “A wikipedia source is not “proof” of anything, especially when I can provide a clear example to refute.”

            Your clear example to refute the point that gravity can cause torque was a video demonstrating that objects of differing densities fall at the same rate as a vacuum.

            That’s bad, that’s no proof.

            You said

            “I tried to teach you gravity cannot create a torque.”

            Yeah, right

            You don’t like wiki, how about this one

            https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/11/what-makes-earth-spin-on-its-axis-without-slowing-down

          • ClintR says:

            No idiot, the video showed that acceleration due to gravity is independent of the object’s mass. You can’t understand basic physics.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            Acceleration isn’t torque

            Using the gravitational force equation the force on the bowling ball and the feather are different

            F = (G M1 * M2)/ R^2

            So the force on the bowling ball is more than the force on the feather, but in the acceleration equation

            F = m * a

            rearranged to solve for a

            a = F/m

            and since in the previous equation the force is proportion to the masses of the objects with the large body mass constant, the force becomes proportional to the mass of the smaller object and cancels out in the acceleration equation, resulting in equal accelerations.

            But the force on the bowling ball and the force on the feather are not equal, so gravity can indeed produce a torque on an object.

            Class ******* dismissed

            Do your ******* homework next time.

          • ClintR says:

            Idiot, you started out okay: “Acceleration isn’t torque”.

            But it was all downhill after. You can’t understand basic physics.

          • bdgwx says:

            Gravity puts a torque on body A when A’s center of mass and center of gravity are displaced. This happens when A has enough plasticity to deform in a sufficiently large gravitational field from body B. This forms a distortion or lobe on body A. Whenever the lobe is offset from the perpendicular line between A and B the gravitational force from B tries to pull the lobe back into alignment. This puts a torque on body A.

            Both the Earth and the Moon have gravitationally induced torques. The torque the Earth puts on the Moon keeps the Moon tidally locked. As the lunar lobe tries to move away from the perpendicular line due to rotational inertia the Earth pulls back on it. This torque is dissipated via internal friction within the Moon. The same effect is happening with the Earth as well. Except that the Earth is not yet tidally locked with the Moon. The torque the Moon puts on the Earth causes the Earth’s rotational angular velocity to slow down. The days are getting longer little bit by little bit. And again this torque is dissipated via internal friction and the sloshing of the ocean. Tidal dissipation amounts to only ~0.01 W/m^2 of geothermal energy.

          • bobdroege says:

            ClintR,

            “Idiot, you started out okay: Acceleration isnt torque.

            But it was all downhill after. You cant understand basic physics.”

            Nope, I schooled your dumb ass.

            Check out a physics book from your local library.

            Maybe look up the difference between molecules and photons too, so you can teach Swenson, so he doesn’t make such a fool of himself.

          • ClintR says:

            As usual bdgwx, you know your nonsense really well. But, you can’t understand the tangled mess that then puts you in.

            Gravity cannot produce a torque. So Moon is NOT “tidally locked”. But, let’s accept your nonsense for a moment. If the Moon is tidally locked, then it cannot rotate about its axis. If you try to then claim that it is in “synchronous rotation”, then you don’t understand orbtial motion, which is the motion of a tennis ball on a string swinging around your head.

            You don’t know physics, so you just get wrapped up in your own web of deceit. And, you can’t learn. You have actually admitted you believe the wooden horse, bolted to the floor, is nevertheless rotating about its axis. That makes you an idiot.

            Which is why this is so enjoyable.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      I am not taking your word for what Svante thinks, but

      The blue plate does not warm because the green plate is transferring heat to it, because heat only flows one way and in this case the flow is from blue to green.

      The blue plate warms because the green plate restricts the rate of cooling of the blue plate.

    • E. Swanson says:

      For those recent arrivals to this blog who may not understand Gordo’s reference, HERE’s a LINK to my Green Plate Demonstration. For Gordo, what is happening is called Radiation Heat Transfer in the engineering world.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        That’s OK, Swanson, links have already been given to two legitimate experiments.

        • Ball4 says:

          Two linked replicable tests by E. Swanson, the tests linked at PSI show the same results.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Here comes the Ball4 troll…

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            So back radiation is really reflection? So why do alarmists not just say reflection? Or is back radiation different from reflection because . . . ?

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Back radiation is not reflection.

            Back radiation is a bad term because CO2 and H2O and the other greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere do get energy from other sources than the upwelling infrared from the surface.

            They are heated directly from the Sun, they gain energy from collisions with other molecules, they get energy from water vapor condensing and subliming, and they get energy from convection.

            Have I missed any?

            Just call it downwelling infrared from the atmosphere.

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            Did you actually read your link? “If you believe that backradiation or reflection . . .”

            No mention of downwelling infrared from the atmosphere. So are you saying that your link is just irrelevant diversion? Or that back radiation is just a bad term that alarmists use because they don’t know scientific terminology?

            Heres a tip. Read your linked information first.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah Swenson,

            I read the whole thing, what did you do just read the last line and go off on it, without seeing that the experiment supports that position.

            You missed what he was doing with the reflection part, that wasn’t to simulate a real atmosphere.

            The experiment is designed to demonstrate that the canard that you can’t increase the temperature of a warmer object using passive radiation from a colder object is false.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            They’re not even using a vacuum…

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            Why does that matter. Never mind, you won’t answer.

            It just shows that there is energy transfer from cold to hot, maybe it’s due to conduction, convection or radiation.

            But it show energy transfer from cold to hot.

            So there you have it.

            At least Thefordprefect doesn’t block the radiation with plastic spacers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            blob has clearly forgotten about Swanson’s earlier experiments, without the vacuum. Or he’s just being dishonest again.

          • bobdroege says:

            I wasn’t discussing Swanson’s experiments this time.

            I did the experiment and found the effect without a vacuum.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, blob.

          • bobdroege says:

            And it took hours for the temperature to stop rising, both for the initial with only one plate and the final with a second plate.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, blob. The point I was making went over your head.

          • bobdroege says:

            DR EMPTY,

            You didn’t make a point.

            Care to try again?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            OK, blob.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Other clues that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis, are in the word “revolution”. You will note that it is a synonym of “rotation”.

  71. Doris Weizendanger says:

    I share his concern for our children, but why would someone believe the well-being of adults does not matter?

  72. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Sorry, my comment was for ClintR, not Gordon.

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    bdg…”Remember, the IPCC does not do original research. They collate the available research …”

    That’s a stretch. Did you not read the Climategate emails where Coordinating Lead Authors like Phil Jones of Had-crut, who choose the Lead Authors, who choose the reviewers, stated that he and another CLA would take steps to block papers from skeptics. And they did.

    You are seriously naive if you think the IPCC review is apolitical and fair.

  74. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Gordon:
    -The GP slows down the BPs ability to dissipate heat so what happens, it warms!!-

    Did the close proximity of the GP prevent the BP from radiating? This is news to me. Sort of like a frog goes quiet if you get to close to the pond? Please expain.

    • Swenson says:

      Doris,

      Sort of like if you remove the heat sink from a solid state device, it may get so hot the smoke escapes. Without its smoke, the device fails.

      But in reverse. Insulation provides no heat, but those of lower intelligence don’t understand the difference between heat, temperature, energy and a whole lot of other things.

      With regard to Swannie’s conclusion, he doesn’t understand enough physics to figure out what has happened. If he totally encloses his heat source in whatever coloured material he used, after a little while the smoke will escape from it and it will be useless. He might convince himself that CO2 and the greenhouse effect were responsible, rather than stupidity.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Swenson wrote:

        Sort of like if you remove the heat sink from a solid state device, it may get so hot the smoke escapes. Without its smoke, the device fails.

        What the [email protected]#$ are you talking about? Did you use a translator to create this post, maybe Chinese or Russian to English? It’s complete garbage!!!

        • ClintR says:

          “Smoke escaping” is a concept from electronics, Swanson.

          A junior assistant janitor wouldn’t understand such things. Stick with your brooms and mops.

        • Swenson says:

          Swanny,

          Sorry. Thought you knew something about electronics and had a sense of humour. Alarmists seem to know bugger all, and are humourless.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Swenson, I suppose that you’ve never read Dilbert. I’m an engineer, after all. Besides, destroying the Earth’s natural life support systems doesn’t seem very funny to me.

          • Swenson says:

            Swanny,

            What the f. . . are you talking about? CO2 Is plant food, if that is what you are talking about. Part of the natural life support system that you want to destroy, apparently. Read the wise words of Gavin Schmidt. No need to panic.

  75. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Swenson,
    So you agree with Gordon – that the close proximity of the GP prevented the BP from radiating? How does an inanimate object know if another is too close?

    • Swenson says:

      Doris,

      Please read what I wrote. Trying to put words in my mouth just makes you look like an idiot alarmist. Learn some physics. If you understand, no explanation is necessary. If you dont, no explanation is possible.

      Feel free to go away and troll elsewhere.

  76. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Swenson

    I understand physics enough to know that the BP would continue to radiate according to its temperature, even if another plate is placed nearby.

    I understand people enough to know when someone is trying to avoid answering a simple question.

    • Swenson says:

      You told me that I was agreeing with words you put into somebody’s mouth. Just putting a question mark on your statement makes no difference,

      Are you a troll or just stupid? It’s a simple question, surely.

  77. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Swenson

    Do you agree with Gordon that the close proximity of the GP prevented the BP from radiating?

    Easy enough to answer.

    – Are you a troll or just stupid? It’s a simple question, surely. –

    Give me a science related question, I promise to answer as best I can.

    • Swenson says:

      Doris,

      How do photons know how to go through transparent materials? What happens to them after that?

      Easy enough for you to answer?

      • Ball4 says:

        Photons don’t have brains, they don’t know anything, is Swenson a reborn troll or just stupid?

        • Swenson says:

          Ball4,

          You are correct in relation to my question. Poor phrasing on my part. You might explain the mechanism by which photons interact with a transparent medium. Feel free to use your own words.

    • Swenson says:

      Doris,

      So glass is transparent because it is transparent? Your best is less than my worst!

      You are a fool. You havent the faintest idea, have you?

  78. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Sorry, should have been,

    – Did the close proximity of the GP cause the BP to radiate less? –

  79. Swenson says:

    No need to panic. According to Gavin Schmidt

    “The thing to push back against is the implicit framing that there is some magic global mean temperature or total emissions that separate ‘fine’ from ‘catastrophic’. There just isn’t,”

    There is more, but the spam filter doesn’t like obscenities.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson, Gavin is a piece of work. He has a degree in applied mathematics and could not explain positive feedback. To Gavin, feedback causes amplification whereas in a real feedback amplifier, there is no feedback without an amplifier. Don’t see any amplifiers in the atmosphere.

      One reason models show such extreme warming is the mysterious positive feedback factor built into their programs. Another problem is assigning an arbitrary warming factor to CO2. Remove both of those fictitious values and the catastrophic warming disappears.

  80. Doris Weizendanger says:

    Swenson

    – How do photons know how to go through transparent materials? What happens to them after that?
    Easy enough for you to answer? –

    Yes, very easy.
    A force caused the photon to be in motion, and a force is required to make it stop. Transparent material does not meet that requirement. The photon, quite obviously, has no choice in the matter

    Gordon wrote,
    – He then raises the green plate so its right in front of the BP on one side and that blocks the BPs radiation on that side. The GP slows down the BPs ability to dissipate heat so what happens, it warms!! –

    The BP is in a vacuum. It dissipates heat through radiation.

    So I ask again, what physics or forces would cause the BP to radiate less just because another plate was placed nearby?

    • Swenson says:

      Doris Dimwit,

      Nobody stated the words you ascribe to Gordon, except yourself. Go away.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      doris…”So I ask again, what physics or forces would cause the BP to radiate less just because another plate was placed nearby?”

      In past arguments I have posited that the GP is metal. Any metal will block EM by absorbing it. Look up Faraday cage or shield. EM blockers are used in homes now as a further level of insulation. Obviously, if you stop a body radiating heat, or reduce the amount it can radiate, the body will warm.

      AN EM wave is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. When the electric field contacts a metal surface it sets up electric currents in the metal that cancel the effect of the EM field. Normally, the shield is grounded so excess charges bleed off to ground.

      In your reply to Swenson, you inferred that photons have momentum that need to be countered by a force to stop them. It’s far more complex than that. For one, there is no evidence that a photon exists. It was defined as a particle of EM to make it easier to deal with at an atomic level but it was defined as a particle of EM with no mass but momentum.

      That does away with the normal momentum related to a force/ mass, since in that case, a force accelerates a mass to a constant volume then the mass maintains a momentum mv. In the case of the photon, mv = 0. As you implied, to stop a real mass you need to apply a force in the opposite direction over a certain period of time to stop the mass.

      A photon, which I prefer to call a quantum of EM, is emitted by an electron as it drops from a higher orbital energy level to a lower energy level. The emitted quantum has intensity E = hf, where f = the angular frequency of the electron and E is the difference between energy levels in electron volts.

      No one knows why an electron emits this quantum but it is known that a moving electron has an electric field around it and a magnetic field at right angles. It’s just a theory that the electron changes energy levels between discrete quantum levels but when it was introduced by Bohr in 1913 it made sense and stuck.

      I don’t think a quantum of energy has momentum as we know it. I think the idea gained merit because once emitted from bazillions of electrons, the quanta act as a wave that propagates at a certain frequency. There’s no known force as we understand force that can be used to stop that propagation.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo wrote:

        …I have posited that the GP is metal. Any metal will block EM by absorbing it.

        The thermal IR EM emissivity of an object is determined by what ever treatment is applied to it’s surface. A polished metal surface will exhibit high reflectivity and thus low emissivity. Coating a polished metal with low emissivity with a SW absorbing layer results in a selective absorbing material used for solar thermal panels for decades. Non-metals, such as ceramics and glass, are good thermal IR emitters. Take a plastic which transmits IR EM radiation and paint it with a flat black coating (such as “lamp black” carbon) and it will exhibit a high emissivity.

  81. bdgwx says:

    I plugged the July data into my spreadsheet.

    The trend is +0.1360 C/decade +- 0.0067.

    The trendline is now at +0.34C.

    That means July was +0.10C above the trendline.

    The largest departure below/above the trendline was 0.44C and 0.71C respectively.

    The standard deviation of the departures is 0.180C.

    Of the 500 samples there were 57 excursions less than 0.2 below the trendline, 23 less than 0.30, 10 less than 0.35, and 4 less than 0.40.

    Despite this I still think a -0.20C anomaly is possible especially if a VEI 6 eruption were to occur. Barring a large aerosol release a -0.10C anomaly is more feasible with a strong La Nina. By 2030 even a La Nina may not be enough to pull us below 0 if current trends hold.

  82. Swenson says:

    From NASA

    *About half the light reaching Earth’s atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. . . . *

    Energy (light) cannot be created or destroyed. Where did the other half go? What erroneous assumption(s) has NASA made, either intentionally, or through abysmal ignorance?

    Duh! No GHE?

  83. Dante says:

    bdgwx:
    Be sure to save your analysis and prediction. I have.

    When the next strong la nina comes around, skeptics will claim the cooling was something the scientific community did not expect. Your work will serve to prove them wrong.

    *The largest departure below/above the trendline was 0.44C and 0.71C respectively.*

    The disparity makes perfect sense, as the greatest negative departure in the ONI during the satellite record was – 1.8 C, while the greatest positive departure was + 2.6 C

    An observation:
    the difference in science aptitude on this blog is simply stunning. A sophisticated comment like yours, bdgwx, is followed by a comment from someone who does not even realize that cloud tops reflect sunlight.

    You could picture a grad student seated next to a fifth grader, both part of the same discussion.

    • Swenson says:

      Dante,

      How do you know bdgwx is a fifth grader? Do trees reflect sunlight? What about green grass? What colour is green grass at night? Does it still radiate energy?

      Do you really need to prove how stupid you are?

    • studentb says:

      It is also stunning how some people become so focussed on coloured plates. Why is that? Surely it is of minor interest in the broader scheme? Maybe people find comfort in arguing over theoretical trivia rather than confronting reality.
      I say: if you are interested in coloured plates – go and play in the kitchen cupboard.

      • studentb says:

        Ditto with rotating

        • ClintR says:

          One advantage of the Moon discussion is that it allows us to clearly identify the idiots.

          A wooden horse bolted to the outer edge of a rotating platform is orbiting the center of the platform. It is NOT rotating about its axis, because it cannot rotate about its axis. It is bolted to the floor!

          Idiots believe the wooden horse is rotating about its axis. That’s why they’re idiots.

        • bdgwx says:

          I believe the rotation topic may have gotten started because a line of discussion evolved (or perhaps devolved) as to why the Moon has a lower mean temperature than does the Earth even though both receive roughly the same amount of solar radiation. Somewhere along the way the science contrarians invoked the faux claim that the Moon is not actually rotating.

          • ClintR says:

            I remember your efforts to twist and distort reality, bdgwx. That’s why the Moon discussion is so important.

            You tried “diurnal”, “synodic/sidereal”, and “libration”, as I recall. But nothing worked for you. You refused to accept reality. And that makes all of your future efforts meaningless.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s not at all the reason why the discussion started, bdgwx. This topic has been discussed long before you started commenting here.

          • bdgwx says:

            What was context on those earlier discussions that I was not part of?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The reason it was brought up was always explained to be: here is an example where all institutions and authorities agree on something, but are wrong. That was the parallel to climate science and specifically the GHE. The bonus was, the moon issue was far simpler to explain.

          • bdgwx says:

            Interesting. I got introduced to it because we were discussing the reasons why the mean temperature of the Moon and Earth were different. Obviously the Moon’s slower rotation rate plays a part in its diurnal temperature range and various other aspects of the temperature. At some point someone (don’t remember who) chimed in and said the Moon doesn’t rotate at all.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The moon does rotate, just not on its own axis.

            It orbits the Earth/moon barycenter.

            Earth – orbits and rotates on its own axis.
            Moon – just orbits.

          • ClintR says:

            bdgwx made an idiot of himself months ago. Now, he’s trying to act like that never happened. Like the others, he’s only fooling himself and other fools.

            He believes that something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475373

          • bobdroege says:

            The moon spins on its axis, see here

            https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html

          • ClintR says:

            Yes bob, “space.com”, and the new perverted NASA, and idiots believe that nonsense.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yes CLintR,

            And non-idiots, those who couldn’t trick an idiot out of a sandwich don’t believe that shit.

          • Swenson says:

            Interesting. If you bolt a sphere to the edge of a rotating platform, so one face always faces the center, and name it *moon*, it is rotating on its axis. If you label it *spherical horse* it is not rotating on its axis.

            Hmmmm.

          • MikeR says:

            I can’t believe after all these years this discussion is still going on.

            My suggestion to the non rotators, to provide convincing evidence to support their views, is to personally conduct an empirical experiment. This involves travel to the north pole ( this experiment also works for the south pole so the antipodeans can also replicate this experiment) so bring warm clothing. This experiment should be done at night so that stars may be visible.

            Stand immobile and observe your environment, particularly the stars, for at least 24 hours and contemplate whether you are rotating on your own axis. Each of the non rotators can take it in turn to replicate the experiment so all members can be convinced either way and aditionally enough data is obtained to minimise uncertainties.

            On second thoughts, to make it a gold standard study, maybe half the group can be used as a control group. These members can just stare at the ground between their feet for 24 hours . At the conclusion the observations of these two groups should be compared.

            On further thought it would probable better, due to possible evisceration by polar bears or savaging by penguins (depending on the locale) , to conduct these experiments, rather than empirically, as thought experiments.

            Hopefully the relevance of this thought experiment to wooden horses, platforms and the moon does not need to be pointed out to the non rotators (maybe a vain hope considering the contibutions of this group ) but if need be, I can make the connections explicit but the take home message is, that it is all relative.

          • ClintR says:

            MikeR, too often people just start typing out a long comment with no clue about the issue. You appear to be new to the discussion, so maybe you’re sincerely attempting to learn.

            The issue does not involve Earth. The issue involves Moon. And the issue is not based on viewing “relative to the stars”, or “inertial space”, or “idiot space”. “Relative to the stars” can give the wrong answer, as you cannot discern “orbiting” from “rotating about its axis”, if you don’t already understand the difference.

            The simple “thought experiment” of the wooden horse mounted to the outer edge of the rotating platform is the easiest to understand. The wooden horse cannot rotate about its axis because it is bolted to the floor. The horse is then “orbiting” about the center of the platform, but not “rotating about its axis”. This is the same motion as the Moon.

            Idiots cannot understand the simple motions involved because they are too influenced by “Neo-NASA”, which perpetuates the mistakes made by Cassini centuries ago. Galileo got it right, c 1590. Newton formalized it about a century later, with his laws of motion. Cassini was apparently jealous of Newton and tried to come up with his “laws of motion” involving Moon, which were based on astrology, not science. Neo-NASA likes false religions.

          • Nate says:

            “Galileo got it right, c 1590. Newton formalized it about a century later, with his laws of motion.”

            Love how the TEAM co-opts dead geniuses into their cult without any evidence that they would have been supportive.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, you don’t have a very good track record of accepting reality.

            Let us know if anything changes.

          • Nate says:

            And yet insults are not answers or evidence, are they?

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, you don’t have a very good track record for accepting reality.

            If anything changes, let us know.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR is describing himself again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, does the wooden horse rotate on its own axis. Yes or no?

            One of your heroes, Norman, says no:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-508017

            I know you do not like to think for yourself, so that might help you answer.

          • Svante says:

            What happened to your toy train?
            Where the wheels worn out as they forced the train to turn, i.e.rotate?